Emotional Intelligence Home Page

 

Daniel Goleman, page 2

 

Emmerling and Goleman's October 2003 Article on the EI Consortium Site, "Emotional Intelligence: Issues and Common Misunderstandings"

Steve Hein's critique of the Emmerling/Goleman October 2003 Article

David Caruso's Feb 2004 comments on the article

Goleman's January 2005 response to Caruso's comments

Steve Hein's critique of Goleman's response to Caruso's comments


Steve Hein's critique of the Emmerling/Goleman October 2003 Article

(sorry it took me so long to get around to reading and critiqueing this)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: ISSUES AND COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Written by:

Robert J. Emmerling, Psy.D

And

Daniel Goleman, Ph.D.

Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

October, 2003

In this article we seek to raise issues and air questions that have arisen along with the growing interest in emotional intelligence.

raise issues and air questions that have arisen?

We hope to catalyze a dialogue among all those with serious interests in the area,

catalyze?

to surface hidden assumptions, correct mistaken impressions,

who would trust Goleman and his pals to "correct mistaken impressions" when they are the ones who have been misleading people for something like 8 years?

and survey a range of opinions. Such open dialogue, we believe, can pay off to the degree it strengthens the research and thinking that are the foundations of the field-both in theory and in applications.

The influence of emotional intelligence on popular culture and the academic community has been rapid and widespread. While this has stimulated a surprising number or research initiatives across a wide range of domains within psychology, the swiftness with which the concept of emotional intelligence has caught on perhaps inevitably created a gap between what we know and what we need to know. Understandably, this has led to a great deal of controversy and debate among researchers and practitioners eager to understand and apply the principles associated with emotional intelligence. Such debate, of course, is not confined to emotional intelligence, but is an inherent part of the process of theory development and scientific discovery in any field.

Research and theory on emotions has waxed and waned over the history of psychology. The behavior revolution inspired by B. F. Skinner and the subsequent cognitive revolution saw interest in emotion seriously undermined. However, beginning in the 1980s and accelerating into the present, interest in emotions has enjoyed a robust resurgence across a wide range of subdisciplines within psychology, neuroscience, and the health sciences-especially the renewed focus on positive psychology, well-being, and mind/body medicine. While such research continues to expand our knowledge of emotions, fundamental questions remain regarding emotional intelligence.

We seek to raise important questions and issues for the field.

didn't they already say this? except this time they didn't say "that have arisen"

The questions we address include: What is emotional intelligence (EI)?

why would we trust them to tell us this now? do they have a new definition or are they just going to keep repeating the same thing and making it sound like they have really thought about it some more?

How is it different from other established constructs within psychology?

"constructs" is a good example of Phidish

Is it possible to develop EI?

anyone who has read goleman's propoganda knows what they are going to say about this. of course they are going to say you can develop it! that is one way goleman is making money consulting! and i suppose emmerling is now too.

Is EI a better predictor of work performance than traditional measures of intelligence-or, more precisely, which kinds of work performance does EI predict most strongly? Should EI be measured at all?

this is the first interesting question that has "arisen" lol I can't wait to see the answer. why don't they put in links so we can just jump to the answers? this is one thing i hate about these papers written in phidish. it takes so long to see what conclusing they have reached, if any. usually most papers end by saying "we need more research" lol

Finally, what is the relationship between ethics and EI?

this will be interesting. again I wish they had put in links. but i will use my word finder to look up the next usage of ethics... okay I found it here is that section I just put my own link in.

All of these are legitimate questions, and each has been raised by many voices in the field. In this article we seek to add to the ongoing dialogue by clarifying our own position,

ie defending themselves some more

and helping to differentiate and sharpen the issues.

but are they planning on answering any of the questions they say have "arisen" or are they just going to defend themselves and "add to the ongoing debate"

We also seek to address some common claims about emotional intelligence that may foster consequential, even unfortunate misunderstandings.

this will be interesting. Let's make a note to look for where exactly they do this.

Note: where do they "address some common claims about emotional intelligence that may foster consequential, even unfortunate misunderstandings."? Let's try a seek on "common claims" Okay. I just did that. Would it surprise you to know that no where else in the rest of their document do they use the term "common claims"? Okay, so let's try something else. Let's try looking for "unfortunate misunderstandings". Would it suprise you to know that this is never used again either? Actually, to save myself some work, I only looked for "misunderstandings", this way I would find "common misunderstandings" or "misunderstandings" alone, if misunderstandings appeared at all. Guess what? They never use the term "misunderstandings" again.

Here are the only places they use the term "misunderstandings"

1. In the title: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: ISSUES AND COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS

now let's stop here for a second....

we are reading an article called "Emotional intelligence: Issues and common misunderstandings. Would it be logical to assume that we are going to be talking a fair bit about misunderstandings? or "Common misunderstandings"? I'd say so. But let's look at how many times the term "common misunderstandings" actually appears in the text of the article:

It appears exactly one time. In the title.

I will continue this later.....

S. Hein
Feb 8, 2005

 

 

As Kuhn (1970) notes, scientists' efforts to deal with data in a systematic fashion, guided by deeply held theories, lead to the formation of distinct research paradigms. Each of these paradigms has its own unique history, methods, and assumptions for dealing with its focal topic, and, in this sense, the emotional intelligence paradigm is no different than other paradigms within psychology.

doesn't impress me. could just show how little use psychology theories are if people can't even agree.

According to Kuhn (1970), such a scientific paradigm becomes "an object for further articulation and specification under new and more stringent conditions." Once models and paradigms have been articulated, the signs of scientific vigor include, "the proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals" (p.91).

ok i like the sound of all that

The current debates and vigorous research efforts in the area of emotional intelligence suggests just this state of affairs;

disagree. Kuhn is most likely talking about a bunch of people interested in theories and research. not some people who are interested in theories and research and others who are interested in making money.

by Kuhn's criteria, the emotional intelligence paradigm would seem to have reached a state of scientific maturity (Goleman, 2001). As paradigms mature, specific theories within the paradigm begin to emerge and differentiate, as has occurred since the first formal formulation of an emotional intelligence theory by Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 1990.

sure, that would be fine if Goleman were really doing serious research and not just trying to a) make money and b) defend himself.

All these new variations on their theme-like the original theory-must be held to Karl Popper's test:

who is karl popper?? and how do we know that "all these new variations 'must' be held" to his test? who is deciding what "must" be done?

A new theory can be justified if it has the potential to explain things that other theories cannot, or if it has the potential to explain things better than other competing theories. Any new theory must lead to testable hypotheses which will allow it to be compared with other theories, with the goal of determining whether the theory would constitute a scientific advance should it survive in light of research aimed at testing its specific hypotheses (Popper, 1959).

fine. but who decides what the theory is called. if goleman wants to call his writing "emotional skills-based management", fine, I'd leave him alone. But when he calls it "emotional intelligence" I don't buy it. Besides, let's not forget, Goleman wrote his first book for the general public. It was only after he realized he could make a fortune from business consulting that he switched his "theory" to the business world. Somehow this doesn't seem to me to be the way real scientific theories are developed.

Moreover, if such a theory is able to withstand rigorous tests of its validity, the question then becomes one of application. Can such a theory be applied without giving rise to inconsistencies? Will such a theory help us to achieve some useful purpose? Is such a theory really needed at all? (Popper, 1959). If a theory can pass these crucial tests, then the theory can be compared with other competing theories to see if the current theory represents a replacement or extension of theories currently in use.

These are all nice questions Rob and Dan. But do you provide any answers?

 

Predictive Validity of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace

Perhaps central to the current interest in emotional intelligence is its potential utility in predicting a range of criterion across disparate populations. As with claims associated with traditional intelligence, the predictive validity of emotional intelligence will likely vary widely depending on the context, criterion of interest, and specific theory used. Traditional measures of intelligence, although providing some degree of predictive validity, have not been able to account for a large portion of the variance in work performance and career success. As Goleman (1998, p. 19) states, "When IQ test scores are correlated with how well people perform in their careers the highest estimate of how much difference IQ accounts for is about 25 percent (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981). A careful analysis, though, suggests a more accurate figure may be no higher than 10 percent and perhaps as low as 4 percent" (Sternberg, 1997). These are still significant correlations, even at the low end of the estimates, and there is no doubt that IQ will remain a significant predictor of work "success", especially in predicting which job, profession, or career path a person can follow. In a recent meta-analysis examining the correlation and predictive validity of EI when compared to IQ or general mental ability, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (in press) found IQ to be a better predictor of work and academic performance than EI. However, when it comes to the question of whether a person will become a "star performer" (in the top ten percent, however such performance is appropriately assessed) within that role, or be an outstanding leader, IQ may be a less powerful predictor than emotional intelligence (Goleman 1998, 2001, 2002). While social scientists are mainly interested in the main predictive relationship between IQ and work success, practitioners and those who must make decisions on hiring and promotion within organizations are understandably far more interested in assessing capabilities related to outstanding performance and leadership. There has been virtually no quantitative social science research on top leaders, however, in part because of the taboo noted by the anthropologist Laura Nader (1996) against "studying up" the power structure-CEOs and others who hold power are resistant to allowing themselves to be assessed by objective measures, including IQ tests. Qualitative research, however, suggests that IQ measures fail to account for large portions of the variance related to performance and career success, especially among top managers and senior leaders (Fernandez-Araoz, 2001). There has, however, been a much larger body of research on top performers (e.g. Kelly, 1998; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), which suggests that IQ alone does not predict in this domain as well as competencies that integrate cognitive, emotional and social abilities.

 

However, the issue of separating abilities related to cognitive intelligence from abilities, traits, and competencies related to emotional intelligence remains a complex one; all definitions of emotional intelligence represent a combination of cognitive and emotional abilities (Cherniss, 2001). This reflects the growing understanding in neuroscience that cognition and emotions are interwoven in mental life (through thick connections between the emotional centers and the neocortex) rather than discretely independent, especially in complex decision-making, self-awareness, affective self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and interpersonal functioning (Davidson, 2001); all these are aspects of emotional intelligence. IQ, however, appears to represent a more "pure" case from the neuroscience perspective, since the brain regions it draws on are localized in the neocortex, and can function relatively well on the items in IQ tests even when lesions isolate these structures from emotional centers (Damasio, 1994).

The failure of IQ to predict a large portion of the variance in performance among managers may be attributable to range restriction on the variable of IQ among managers and senior executives. To assume a position of leadership in today's workplace often requires that an individual demonstrate at least average, and more often above average intelligence; leadership requires a high level of cognitive ability in order to process the complexity of information leaders face daily. The completion of undergraduate and graduate programs as well as successfully passing testing and credentialing procedures typically serves to ensure that those able to pass such hurdles are of above average intelligence. This renders given levels of IQ a "threshold" competence, a minimal capability that all who are within a given job pool must have in order to get and keep their job. For example, physicians, CPAs and CEOs may all need an IQ at least one standard deviation above the mean in order to hold their job . However, simply having an IQ in that superior range does not in itself guarantee that they will be superior doctors, accountants, or leaders (McClelland, 1973; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). IQ, then, suffers from range restriction in many applied organizational settings, and thus is even more limited in its ability to predict performance and career success within a given vocation. While IQ may account for a more substantial amount of the variance in performance in entry-level positions, even in this context it rarely acts to reliably distinguish average and star performers. Even in educational settings the use of traditional testing procedures has often left much of the variance in educational outcomes unexplained. This combined with the adverse impact that traditional testing procedures may have on minority groups has motivated interest in developing alternative methods of assessment (Steele, 1997).

While the assessment of constructs within the emotional intelligence paradigm have shown significant utility and predictive validity in applied settings (e.g. Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993), claims of the relative importance of emotional intelligence compared to traditional forms of intelligence needs further empirical investigation to better determine the relative contribution of each in the prediction of specific criterion (Goleman, 2000). While IQ should remain an important predictor of the types of vocations a given individual can assume, once within that vocation the predictive validity of IQ would seem to diminish significantly. The notion of IQ as a threshold competence is an important distinction and one that has often been overlooked or down played by many theorists as well as in the popular media. The excitement generated in the popular media has often left the impression that high emotional intelligence might somehow compensate for a low IQ and allow those with below average IQ, but high emotional intelligence, to thrive in spite of below average intelligence - in essence giving the false impression that IQ matters little. While we agree that IQ is clearly an important construct, we join other theorists who argue that by expanding our definition of intelligence we obtain a more realistic and valid assessment of the factors that lead to personal effectiveness and adaptation (see Sternberg, 1997, 2002). To the degree that popular and scientific interest in emotional intelligence has begun to challenge long held assumptions of what leads to success in life, the emotional intelligence paradigm, and those working in it, have helped to bring a more balanced view of the role of cognition and emotion in determining life outcomes.

While research on emotional intelligence has progressed significantly since its inception, more research will be needed to further validate claims of the relative importance that traditional intelligence and emotional intelligence hold to the prediction of specific criterion. Longitudinal research looking at the relative contribution of IQ and specific theoretical constructs within the emotional intelligence paradigm would help better clarify the relative importance of each as it relates to specific criterion, such as work performance over an individual's career. Such direct comparisons between IQ and emotional intelligence would be a welcome addition to the growing literature.

The "Problem" of Multiple Theories of Emotional Intelligence

People are often surprised to find that within the emotional intelligence paradigm there exists not one, but several theories (e.g. Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995:1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) . Each theory has been put forward in an attempt to better understand and explain the skills, traits, and abilities associated with social and emotional intelligence. While some might argue that the goal of research should be to identify and define a singular theoretical framework to be labeled as the "correct" version of emotional intelligence, another approach would be to acknowledge that having multiple theories can often serve to elucidate additional aspects of complex psychological constructs. For example, research looking at the correlation between the MEIS (a measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of emotional intelligence), and the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) (a measure of Reuven Bar-On's model of emotional intelligence) has shown the two measures are not highly correlated with one another, suggesting that these two measures are tapping different aspects of the construct (however, each major theory differs somewhat in its version of the basic definition of EI). Moreover, research on the MEIS (and its successor the MSCEIT v2.0) have shown it to be correlated with traditional measures of intelligence (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, in press). This moderate correlation with IQ is consistent with the author's view that all forms of intelligence should show some degree of correlation to be properly classified as an intelligence. The low to moderate correlations between IQ, specifically verbal intelligence, and emotional intelligence suggests that the relationship between these two constructs is relatively orthogonal in nature. While less correlated with traditional intelligence, the Bar-On EQ-i, and other trait-based theories of emotional intelligence, show a higher degree of overlap with traditional measures of personality (Bar-On, 1997; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dorheim, 1998). While the correlations between these trait-based emotional intelligence measures and traditional measures of personality, such as measures that assess the Big Five, are moderate to high, researchers have often been able to demonstrate the discriminant validity of trait-based approaches to emotional intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Saklofke, Austin, & Minski, 2003; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dorhneim, 1998; Van Der Zee, Thijs, Schakel, 2002; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, in press; Wong & Law, 2002). While correlations with traditional psychological constructs are to be expected, more recent research on the incremental validity of emotional intelligence when IQ and personality are controlled for has shown that emotional intelligence is indeed a unique construct that accounts for unique variance (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Palmer, Gardner, & Stough, 2003; Saklofke, Austin, & Minski, 2002; Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dorhneim, 1998; Van Der Zee, Thijs, Schakel, 2002; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, in press). Given the relative youth of the emotional intelligence construct, scientific evidence continues to mount that suggests the construct represents a constellation of traits and abilities that are not fully accounted for by cognitive intelligence and traditional measures of personality.

However, the evidence here remains murky. For one, each of the studies that speak to the issue have used different measures of EI, which are in turn based on different definitions of the construct. For instance, Schutte et al. (1998) use a measure based on the Mayer and Salovey definition which, we would expect, should overlap little with personality. The issue of personality overlap pertains mainly to the Bar-On and Goleman models of EI. Another problem with many of these studies is that they look at the relationship between specific aspects of EI and specific personality traits. For instance, there are small to moderately high correlations between Extraversion (from the Big Five) and each of the four clusters as assessed on the ECI (Sala, 2002). What is needed to clarify the question of overlap is a study that combines personality traits and then examines incremental validity for EI. While Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (in press) did this, they combine all the measures of EI; what is needed, though, is an analysis that does this separately for the ECI and the EQ-i.

We should remember, too, that the existence of several theoretical viewpoints within the emotional intelligence paradigm does not indicate a weakness, but rather the robustness of the field. This kind of alternative theorizing, of course, is not unique to the study of emotional intelligence and should not be viewed as undermining the validity and utility of this emerging field. In describing the current status of the overall field of intelligence, Sternberg, Lautrey, and Lubart (2002) comment, "few fields seem to have lenses with so many colors." (p.3). Yet the field of traditional intelligence (IQ) has not seriously been threatened or discredited for having multiple theories; continuing debate and research on traditional intelligence has significantly increased our knowledge and practical applications of intelligence assessment to a wide range of populations and issues. Moreover, within the field of intelligence theory, this debate has continued for almost 100 years, and promises to continue well into the foreseeable future. While still in its infancy, the field of emotional intelligence would seem to be following a similar trajectory.

While several theories associated with the emotional intelligence paradigm currently exist, the three that have generated the most interest in terms of research and application are the theories of Mayer and Salovey (1997), Bar-On (1988; 2000a) and Goleman (1998b; 2002). While all of these theorists have been associated with the emotional intelligence paradigm, a closer reading of their writing over time will reveal a significant divergence in the specific language they use to label their theories and constructs. While each theory represents a unique set of constructs that represents the theoretical orientation and context in which each of these authors have decided to frame their theory, all share a common desire to understand and measure the abilities and traits related to recognizing and regulating emotions in ourselves and others (Goleman, 2001).

disagree. Goleman and Bar-On share a desire to make money and defend themselves. Mayer and Salovey, or at least Mayer, were interested in pure theory. I trust Jack Mayer. To this date, I have seen little to no evidence of a desire on his part to make money from his work on emotional intelligence.

As Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, (2000) point out, although definitions within the field of emotional intelligence vary, they tend to be complementary rather than contradictory. All theories within the emotional intelligence paradigm seek to understand how individuals perceive, understand, utilize and manage emotions in an effort to predict and foster personal effectiveness.

disagree. this is not what Goleman or Bar-On have been saying. Emmerling and Goleman are trying to make Goleman's work look more like Jack and Peter's to give it more credibility. Everything they just listed, "how individuals perceive, understand, utilize and manage emotions" is straight from the Mayer Salovey model

An awareness of the origins and motivations of each of these theories provides additional insight into why the specific constructs, and methods used to measure them, vary among the major theories.

The first of the three major theories to emerge was that of Bar-On (1988). In his doctoral dissertation he coined the term emotional quotient (EQ), as an analogue to intelligence quotient (IQ).

we have no evidence of that. ** note to steve - get the reference -- and besides even if he did use the term, he wasn't talking about emotional "intelligence". Bar-On has been very blatantly trying to make money from the term emotional intelligence. And to make a name for himself. And he has succeeded more due to his own self-promotion than anything else. Bar-On never had one academic article published about emotional intelligence, so I really don't see why these guys are giving him any credibility whatsoever. No one has said Bar-On's test is a test of EI, except Bar-On and the people making money from selling and administering his test.

The timing of the publication of his dissertation in the late 1980s was consistent with an increasing interest in the role of emotion in social functioning and well-being, but before interest in emotional intelligence enjoyed the widespread interest and popularity that it does today. Bar-On (2000a) currently defines his model in terms of an array of traits and abilities related to emotional and social knowledge that influence our overall ability to effectively cope with environmental demands, as such, it can be viewed as a model of psychological well-being and adaptation.

if it is a model of psychological well-being and adaptation, why are we even talking about it in a paper on emotional intelligence? It is hard for me to guess why Emmerling and Goleman are even talking about Bar-On. It might be that they want to use him to make it look like there are lots of models of EI so people will be tricked into thinking Mayer and Saloveys is nothing particulary special, it is just one of many. I suspect Emmerling/Goleman don't want to ever admit Jack and Peter were the only ones who were seriously trying to define something called emotional intelligence, and they are still the only researchers, as far as I know from the last time I was keeping up with the academic papers, who have been given some respect within the academic world. Goleman doesn't want the public to know this. He wants them to be confused. I'd say this entire article is bullshit and is intentionally written to mislead the public even more than Goleman has already done.

This model includes (1) the ability to be aware of, to understand, and to express oneself; (2) the ability to be aware of, to understand and relate to others; (3) the ability to deal with strong emotions and control one's impulses; and (4) the ability to adapt to change and to solve problems of a personal or social nature. The five main domains in this model are intrapersonal skills , interpersonal skills , adaptability , stress management , and general mood (Bar-On, 1997b).

who cares? it is not a model of emotional intelligence! stp talking about it, please! You might as well talk about a theory of bird migration, which though could be interesting, has nothing to do with emotional intelligence.

The EQ-i, which Bar-On constructed to measure the model, is a self-report measure that specifically measures emotionally and socially competent behavior that estimates an individual's emotional and social intelligence,

it "estimates an individual's emotional and social intelligence"? according to who?

as opposed to traditional personality traits or cognitive capacity (Bar-On, 2000).

oh, according to Bar-On. I might as well say my little picture test "estimates emotional and social intelligence as well as cookie making skills". But seriously, let's consider this problem. Bar-On says his test "estimates emotional intelligence" but he hasn't defined emotional intelligence himself. He hasn't written one peer reviewed article where he says "This is my theory of emotional intelligence". So what is he saying it estimates then? The emotional intelligence that Mayer and Salovey are talking about, or the EI that Goleman is trying to sell us? Or something else. Let's say he would like us to believe his test estimates what Jack and Peter are calling EI. Then he would have to be saying that his test gives similar results to theirs. But as I recall from some of Jack's papers, his test doesn't give similar results. This is a little bit like saying someone wants to measure a person's running ability. But one person checks how fast they can run a 50 yard dash and another person checks to see how fast they can run a marathon. Both tests have to do with running, but to call the marathon an estimate of one's ability to run a short race quickly would be miseleading. The MSCEIT test and Bar-On's test are measuring different things. I don't think the MSCEIT is measuring emotional intelligence, and I'd say it is much less likely that Bar-On would be lucky enough to find out his test measures anything we could actually call emotional intelligence. It's like I make a test to measure someone's Spanish speaking skills and I find out that this predicts to a small degree, how well they will do on a Portugese test, since they are a little similar. And I find out that people really are going nuts for Portugese tests and they are willing to pay a lot of money for tests of Portugese, so I figure, what the hell, let's call my test a test of Portugese, and if anyone really gives me a hard time I will just say it is a test which "estimates" ones ability to speak Portugese and then hope people leave me alone. And I will also confuse them with talking a lot and showing a lot of research, which is exactly what Bar-On has been doing ever since I first started noticing his name back around the year 1999 or 2000.

The use of a self-report measure to assess individuals on this model is consistent with established practice within personality psychology, where self-report measures represent the dominant, though certainly not the only, method of assessment. However, it must be noted that since its initial publication the Bar-On EQ-i has also been published as a 360-degree measure. While correlations between the EQ-i and subscales of other established measures of personality, especially ones that are thought to tap closely related constructs, have been moderate to high, overall the EQ-i seems to provide a valid and reliable estimate of an individual's ability to effectively cope with the pressures and demands of daily life, as conceptualized by Bar-On (Bar-On, 2000a).

Emotional intelligence as formulated in the theory of Mayer & Salovey (1997) has been framed within a model of intelligence. The motivation to develop a theory of emotional intelligence, and instruments to measure it, came from a realization that traditional measures of intelligence failed to measure individual differences in the ability to perceive, process, and effectively manage emotions and emotional information. The use of this frame is significant, as it defines emotional intelligence more specifically as the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Like other intelligences, emotional intelligence is defined by Mayer and Salovey as a group of mental abilities, and is best measured using a testing situation that is performance or ability based. This focus on objective, performance-based assessment is similar in spirit to the methods used to measure traditional intelligence (IQ). For example, to measure spatial reasoning ability, traditionally seen as a type of cognitive intelligence, it makes sense to present an individual with a set of spatial reasoning tasks of varying difficulty in order to gauge their ability on this type of intelligence. Performance-based measures of emotional intelligence take a similar approach. For example, if you want insight into an individual's ability to perceive emotions in others, it makes sense to present them a variety of visual images, such as faces, and ask them to identity the emotion(s) present. The most current measure of the Mayer & Salovey model, the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, Emotional Intelligence Test v.2.0 (MSCEIT v2.0), makes use of this approach and thus yields scores that are based on an individual's performance on a set of items designed to measure the four branch model of emotional intelligence. As is evident within traditional theories and methods of measuring cognitive intelligence, the measure is viewed as applicable to a wide range of settings, for example clinical assessment, education, and the workplace. This potential for application across diverse settings and populations is a consistent theme within the general intelligence literature as well.

The framing of emotional intelligence within the larger body of theory and research on intelligence has other implications as well. As Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) point out, to qualify as an actual intelligence several criteria must be met. First, any intelligence must reflect actual mental performance rather than preferred behavior patterns, self-esteem, or other constructs more appropriately labeled traits. Second, the proposed intelligence should describe a set of related abilities that can be shown as conceptually distinct from established intelligences; and third, an intelligence should develop with age. To date, the ability-based model has provided evidence to support each of these demands required to be correctly labeled an intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). As Sternberg (2002) recently commented, "An impressive aspect of this work is Salovey, Mayer, and their colleagues' program of careful validation to assess the construct validity of their theory and measures. In a relatively short amount of time, they have developed measures and provided good evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity." (p.3)

The most recent addition to theory within the emotional intelligence paradigm is the framework of emotional intelligence put forward by Goleman (1998b) in his book Working with Emotional Intelligence, and clarified in a later article (Goleman, 2001). This theory represents a framework of emotional intelligence that reflects how an individual's potential for mastering the skills of Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management translates into success in the workplace (Goleman, 2001). Goleman's model of emotional intelligence, then, offers these four major domains. He then postulates that each of these domains becomes the foundation for learned abilities, or competencies, that depend on underlying strength in the relevant EI domain. The EI domain of Self-Awareness, for example, provides the underlying basis for the learned competency of "Accurate Self-Assessment" of strengths and limitations pertaining to a role such as leadership. The competency level of this framework is based on a content analysis of capabilities that have been identified through internal research on work performance in several hundred companies and organizations worldwide. Goleman defines an emotional 'competence' as "a learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work" (Goleman, 1998b). That such competencies are learned is a critical distinction. Where emotional intelligence , as defined by Mayer & Salovey, represents our potential for achieving mastery of specific abilities in this domain, the emotional competencies themselves represent the degree to which an individual has mastered specific, skills and abilities that build on EI and allow them greater effectiveness in the workplace (Goleman, 2001). In this context, emotional intelligence might predict the ease by which a given individual will be able master the specific skills and abilities of a given emotional competence.

Grounding his theory specifically within the context of work performance separates Goleman's model from those of Bar-On, and Mayer and Salovey. Where the latter frame their theories as general theories of social and emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence respectively, Goleman's theory is specific to the domain of work performance. According to the test manuals of both the MSCEIT v2.0 (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002b) and the Bar-On EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), these measures are applicable to a wider range of settings such as clinical assessment, educational settings, in addition to the workplace. Where Bar-On seeks to develop a general measure of social and emotional intelligence predictive of emotional well-being and adaptation, and Mayer and Salovey seek to establish the validity and utility of a new form of intelligence, the model of Goleman seeks to develop a theory of work performance based on social and emotional competencies. This "competency" based approach reflects a tradition that emphasizes the identification of competencies that can be used to predict work performance across a variety of organizational settings, often with an emphasis on those in leadership positions (Boyatzis, 1982; Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Kotter, 1982; Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1998; McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner, & Strodbeck, 1958; Spencer & Spencer, 1993; Thornton & Byham, 1982). Though not originally a theory of social and emotional competence, as research on "star performers" began to accumulate, it became apparent that the vast majority of competencies that distinguished average performers from "star performers" could be classified as falling in the domain of social and emotional competencies, although conceptual thinking or "big picture" thinking is also a hallmark of superior performance, especially among executives who often must process information in complex situations that include a myriad of interdependent factors. More recent research reviewed by Goleman (2002) has shown that the more senior the leader, the more important emotional competencies become. This finding, combined with research supporting the notion that those in higher positions within the organizational hierarchy often demonstrate higher levels of self / other discrepancies on 360 feedback measures (Sala, 2001b: 2002), helped motivate the selection of a 360-degree methodology to measure social and emotional competencies, although methods based on behavioral event interviewing (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), simulations, and assessment centers (Thornton & Byham, 1982) also represent reliable and valid methods for assessing social and emotional competencies. The selection of a 360-degree methodology was also desirable for its ease of use compared to other methods, its comprehensiveness (to ensure that all competencies could be assessed with one instrument), and validity (capturing both self and others' views) (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2001). The most current measure of Goleman's theory of emotional competence is the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0). According to the Emotional Competence Inventory technical manual, "The ECI is a 360-degree tool designed to assess the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations. It is based on emotional competencies identified by Daniel Goleman in Working with Emotional Intelligence (1998), and on competencies from Hay/McBer's Generic Competency Dictionary (1996) as well as Richard Boyatzis's Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)" (Sala, 2002, pg. 1). Like other theories reviewed here, Goleman's theory of emotional competence reflects an extension, refinement, and reconcepualization of previous research and theory in an effort to better understand complex affective processes in order to predict relevant criterion, in this case work performance. As such, the theory of emotional competence and the instrument designed to measure its constructs (i.e. Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0) have been refined based on empirical research (Sala, 2002). The current model reflects the results of recent statistical analysis (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000; Sala, 2002) intended to gain additional insight into the structure of social and emotional competencies. For a full review of reliability and validity issues related to the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, please refer to the ECI Technical Manual (Sala, 2002).

While continued research will be needed to further establish the validity of the current version of the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, recent research on the original Emotional Competence Inventory 360 (Cavallo & Brienza, 2002; Lloyd, 2001; Stagg & Gunter, 2002) combined with decades of research using a competency-based approach (see Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993 for review), demonstrates the utility of this approach for the assessment, training and development of social and emotional competencies in the workplace. Initial concurrent validity studies using assessments based on Goleman's model have been able to account for a larger amount of variance in work performance than EI measures based on the Mayer and Salovey model of emotional intelligence (Bradberry & Greaves, 2003 ). Concurrent validity studies, relating to work performance, comparing Goleman's model and Bar-On's, have yet to be conducted or reported in the literature. While such findings remain tentative, we believe that a model of emotional intelligence focused specifically on the workplace, combined with a multi-rater format, provides individuals and organizations feedback on the large majority of competencies that best account for superior work performance. However, as the emotional intelligence paradigm continues to mature, measurements and techniques for assessment should continually evolve based on empirical research.

Can Emotional Intelligence be Developed?

Another factor contributing to the popularity of theories of emotional intelligence is the assumption that, unlike IQ, emotional intelligence can be developed. There has been a great degree of scepticism on this point. For example, McCrae (2000) recently commented, ".we know a great deal about the origins of personality traits. Traits from all five factors are strongly influenced by genes (Riemann, Angleitner, & Stelau, 1997) and are extraordinarily persistent in adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This is likely to be unwelcome news to proponents of emotional intelligence, who have sometimes contrasted a supposed malleability of emotional intelligence with the relative fixity of traditional IQ" (p. 266).

While we acknowledge that genetics likely play an important role in the development of emotional intelligence, we also note that geneticists themselves challenge as na´ve the assumption that nurture does not impact nature: gene expression itself appears to be shaped by the social and emotional experiences of the individual (Meany, 2001). Bar-On (2000) has found successively older cohorts tend to score higher on his scale of EI, suggesting that, to some extent, EI may be learned through life experience. However, apart from this general, if weak, improvement in EI with maturation, we argue that without sustained effort and attention, individuals are unlikely to improve greatly a given aspect of their emotional intelligence. If the impression has been given that significant improvement of social and emotional competencies is easily accomplished, this is unfortunate. That the development of social and emotional competencies takes commitment and sustained effort, over time, is a position that we, in addition to others, have held for some time (Cherniss & Adler, 2000; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Cherniss, Goleman, Emmerling, Cowan, and Adler, 1998; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). However, a wide range of findings from the fields of psychotherapy (Barlow, 1985); training programs (Marrow, Jarrett, Rupinski, 1981) and executive education (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995) all provide evidence for people's ability to improve their social and emotional competence with sustained effort and a systematic program. In addition, new findings in the emerging field of affective neuroscience have begun to demonstrate that the brain circuitry of emotion exhibits a fair degree of plasticity, even in adulthood (Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000).

While the evidence that people can improve on emotional intelligence competencies comes from a wide range of sources, perhaps the most persuasive evidence comes from longitudinal studies conducted at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University (Boyatzis, Cowan, & Kolb, 1995). The students in this study participated in a required course on competence building, which allowed students to assess their emotional intelligence competencies, in addition to cognitive ones, select the specific competencies they would target for development, and develop and implement an individualized learning plan to strengthen those competencies. Objective assessment of students at the beginning of the program, upon graduation and again years later on-the-job allows a unique opportunity to help address the issue of whether emotional intelligence competencies can be developed. The results of this research have shown that emotional intelligence competencies can be significantly improved, and, moreover, these improvements are sustainable over time. As can be seen in Figure 1, the effects of the program have been impressive, especially when compared to what is seen in traditional forms of executive education. These effects are much larger than the effects observed in traditional MBA programs and typical corporate leadership development initiatives. Research on traditional MBA programs found just a 2% increase in social and emotional competencies as a result of program completion (Boyatzis, Cowan, & Kolb, 1995). Although traditional corporate leadership initiatives tend to fare better, the effects are also relatively small and tend to fade significantly over time. That the effects observed in the Weatherhead MBA program were sustained for a period of several years provides evidence that, not only is it possible to develop emotional intelligence competencies, but that such changes can be sustained over an extended period.

missing... images/misc_images/ei_issues_and_common_misunderstandings_clip_image002.gif

In addition to research related to outcome studies and program evaluations, the findings from affective neuroscience also provide evidence for the potential to develop emotional intelligence competencies. The findings of LeDoux (1996) seem to indicate that although there are stable individual differences in activation patterns in the central circuitry of emotion, there is also pronounced plasticity. Research on animals has established that the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus, all of which are involved in the perception, use and management of emotions, are all sites where plasticity is known to occur (Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000). However, it has only recently been demonstrated that such plastic changes can occur in the adult human hippocampus as well (Eriksson et al., 1998 as cited in Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000). Recent research on "mindfulness" training-an emotional self-regulation strategy-has also shown that training can actually alter the brain centers that regulate negative and positive emotions. Mindfulness training focuses on helping people to better stay focused on the present, thus keeping distressful and distracting thoughts (e.g. worries) at bay, and to pause before acting on emotional impulse. R&D scientists from a biotech firm who received mindfulness training reported less stress after eight weeks, and they felt more creative and enthusiastic about their work (Davidson & Kabat-Zinn, et al., 2003) . While such results serve to support our notion that emotional intelligence competencies can be developed, additional evaluation studies would be a welcome addition to the literature.

Should We Be Measuring Emotional Intelligence?

The use of psychological measurement has always been somewhat controversial, and the measurement of theories within the emotional intelligence paradigm is no different. That the affective experience and abilities of individuals can somehow be quantified has made some uncomfortable. This may, in part, be due to a philosophical view that has seen emotions as unpredictable, irrational, and something to be suppressed in favor of logic and reason. Viewed in this way, emotions and emotional intelligence would hardly be worth measuring even if one could. However, theories of emotional intelligence have helped to counter this view and offered the promise of a more balanced view of what it means to be intelligent about emotions, expanding our understanding of the role that emotions play in mental life.

The use of emotional intelligence measures in organizational settings has also been somewhat controversial (e.g. Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Mattews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2003). The application of social and emotional competencies, and the subsequent focus on work performance and assessment has led some critics to label assessments based on social and emotional competencies as reminiscent of more mechanistic or Tayloristic views that ultimately aim to increase performance and efficacy at the expense of the well-being of individual employees. However, where Taylor's attempt to apply scientific principles to the workplace was dominated by a core belief that individuals are basically rational beings, the very central tenets of emotional intelligence make clear that individuals are a complex combination of emotion and reason. Emotions had little place in the mechanistic worldview of Taylor. However, our view is that providing a theory and assessment methodology capable of assessing emotional intelligence competencies helps to identify individuals likely to succeed in a given organizational role. Moreover, without a specific theory of emotional competence, and methods to assess them, employees may be limited to feedback on issues more related to technical competence, or left with vague feedback related to their "people skills" or "leadership style." In order to improve on any ability-including emotional competence-people need realistic feedback of their baseline abilities, as well as their progress.

Specific and accurate assessment and feedback on these competencies is more straightforwardly obtained with a framework of emotional competence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). Providing reliable and valid feedback on specific social and emotional competencies, so long as it is provided in a safe and supportive environment, helps to provide employees with insight into their strengths and areas for development. However, in applied practice the almost exclusive focus on "performance gaps" in traditional development planning has often undermined the effective use of feedback in coaching and training and development initiatives focused on assessing and developing emotional intelligence. Providing a more balanced view, including a focus on strengths, an articulation of a personal vision and how developing emotional intelligence competencies helps one achieve that vision, paired with a supportive environment, can often help to overcome feelings of defensiveness that often undermine the development of social and emotional competencies. If done correctly, such feedback becomes a central component of work motivation as conceptualized by several experts in the field of goal setting and motivation. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990).

 

I jumped ahead and started taking this section apart.

The Ethical Dimension and EI

Could there be an emotionally intelligent terrorist? This provocative question raises the issue of how morals and values relate to emotional intelligence: is EI morally neutral, or does it interact with an ethical dimension? Typically in psychology, ethics and morality are treated as an orthogonal,

as what?? if this isn't phidish, i don't know what is!

independent dimension, in a domain beyond the concerns at hand; we know of no serious articles exploring, say, the moral dimensions of the Big Five personality factors, nor of personality dimensions like self-efficacy, optimism, or extraversion. The question might just as well be, Could there be an efficacious, optimistic, and extraverted terrorist? Clearly, if the answer were "Yes," that does not invalidate the intrinsic worth of efficacy, optimism or extraversion for psychological science. As Howard Gardner (1999, p. 10) put it, "no intelligence is moral or immoral in itself;" noting that Goethe used his verbal skills in a laudable manner, the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in a hateful way.

Even so, there may be significant issues to explore at the intersection of ethics and EI. Goleman (1995, 1998) has speculated that certain aspects of EI may tend to promote prosocial behavior:

speculated? no, he made statements, provided us with what he claimed were research findings to support his claims

Self-awareness must be deployed to act in accord with one's own sense of purpose, meaning, and ethics;

I'd like to see where Goleman said this. I read the book three times and don't remember it. how about some quotes and specific citations, Rob?

empathy appears an essential step in fostering altruism and compassion.

appears?

One question, then, is the extent to which cultivating abilities like empathy and self-awareness fosters a positive ethical outlook.

but no one has proven that empathy is part of emotional intelligence yet, folks. This is one of the things which Goleman said in his 95 book but was unsupported by any work that Mayer and Salovey had done. Mayer and Salovey have never, as far as I remember, said empathy is part of emotional intelligence. I am not saying that it isn't but I am saying that Goleman has not proven that it is. Listening to Goleman is like listening to a religious person who says something is true because it says so in the Bible, expecting us to be stupid enough to believe that this is a good enough explanation, which unfortunately, it is for a depressingly large number of people. Maybe Goleman is counting on this kind of thing with his claims.

ok. i just check the page on mayer and salovey's four branch model of ei. the word empathy does not appear anywhere on the page. check it yourself if you don't believe me.

On the other hand, there are no doubt instances of Machiavellian types who use EI abilities-especially empathy and social skills like persuasion--

again they are telling us that empathy and social skills like persuassion are part of EI. How stupid do they really think people are? Let me remind everyone who reads this: No one else in the entire field of psychology has said that empathy and "social skills like persuassion" are part of emotional intelligence. Goleman and his pals are misleading the hell out of people. And I feel offended even more because in this article they claim to be saying that they are going to "correct mistaken impressions." Sorry, but I think it would be more accurate to say "we are going to try again to convince you that our misleading claims about EI are true. This is like saying "we are going to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct."

to lead people astray or manipulate them, or who deploy social awareness skills to clamber over others to the top of the ladder. However, preliminary research on the Machiavellian personality suggests that those with this bent

this "bent"? is that like saying this personality trait? I didn't think they wanted to talk about personality traits. I feel confused!

tend to have diminished empathy abilities,

empathy abilities? why can't they just say empathy? are they trying to make empathy sound more like an ability so it will look more like their definition of EI is so close to that of Mayer and Saloveys that we won't realize their is an important difference?

focusing most clearly in areas related to their self-interest, and poorly in other domains (Davis & Kraus, 1997).  For those who adopt the stance that the ends justify the means, a manipulative application of EI skills

I would say that Goleman himself absolutely manipulated his readers. In fact I have said this on my page on him. And I have given examples. see this link.

(or any other ability, for that matter) would be acceptable, no matter the moral repugnance of the goal.

Would all those who voted for George Bush say that the ends justify the means?

We believe these issues have importance for the field, and deserve more thought, study and research.

lol- Come on. They are only writing this article to try to defend themselves and sound more "academic" and "balanced" And didn't I say they were going to end with "we need more research" lol Who can really take these people seriously!?

Conclusion

In this article we have attempted to address some of the central issues that confront the emotional intelligence paradigm.

confront the emotional intelligence paradigm? sounds like more Phidish to me!

Although debate and controversy will likely continue within the field for some time, overall interest in the topic of emotional intelligence continues to increase. It is our sincere wish that the energy embodied in this debate facilitate the continued refinement of theory and practice related to emotional intelligence.

shouldn't that be "facilitates" and who votes that these guys are "sincere" about anything except their wish to make more money?

While the progress of the emotional intelligence paradigm has been impressive, much remains to be discovered.

lol - what a way to end the article!

So have they answered any of the questions they supposedly set out to answer, or have they corrected any "mistaken impressions"? They didn't even answer the question they asked in the first line of this section: Could there be an emotionally intelligent terrorist? So I will answer it for them. Yes, there could.

Too many questions, not enough answers. And not enough good answers.

Please write me with your comments.

Steve


Comment on D. Caruso, Defining the Inkblot Called Emotional Intelligence

Submitted by:

Daniel Goleman, Ph.D.

January 2005

Apples and Applesauce

David Caruso’s insightful and well-balanced response characterizes the three main models of EI in terms of a framework hinted at in my essay with Robert Emmerling. Caruso then proposes that the three main models in the field each belong in a different domain: the Bar-On model reflecting a “trait” approach, my own a “competence” perspective, and the Mayer-Salovey model an “intelligence” theory.

While this seems reasonable, I feel a need to clarify this proposed categorization in terms of a more careful analysis of the relationship between a competence and the underlying intelligence upon which it builds. I believe that there may be a problem here with logical types – more specifically, that emotional intelligence and EI competence are intimately related, but not of the same order. Rather, one emerges from the other. Instead of apples and oranges, it’s apples and applesauce.

So the proposed division may have the unintended effect of obscuring important connections between aspects of emotional intelligence, by making them appear more unrelated than they actually are. Take as an analog the abilities of a gifted architect, which depend on a fundamental talent for spatial thinking. IQ tests include spatial thinking in the standard array of abilities they assess. However, simply scoring well on spatial abilities in itself would be insufficient for success as an architect – what’s needed in addition is years spent cultivating the ways the person can apply her talent in spatial thinking to what an architect does.

In other words, a gift for spatial thinking offers a platform upon which the craft of architecture can build. Architectural skill can be seen as an emergent property of spatial ability, one that only emerges with years of proper training.

Likewise, the EI competencies are based on a platform of emotional intelligence, as I’ve proposed in my essay on this website, An EI-Based Theory of Performance

In a study of high-performers at Johnson & Johnson, each of these EI competencies was found to have a distinct developmental history over many years in a person’s life (Dreyfus & Mangino, 2001). For instance, a woman who was an outstanding team leader described how she had honed this EI competence beginning as a coach for her school’s field hockey team in junior high school. With each such iteration in the course of life, people can spontaneously build the skill sets that are identified in the organizational context as ‘EI competence’. Lacking such serendipitous experiences in life, people can intentionally cultivate any of the EI competences, with the proper model of learning.

One reason I and others talk about the “EI competencies” as such – and not just as “competencies” – is to make the identical distinction in the universe of competence models that John Mayer and Peter Salovey have established in arguing for EI to be considered an intelligence apart from IQ: EI encompasses abilities like emotional self-regulation that are not assessed by IQ tests. Such EI abilities draw on sub-cortical brain regions that are quite distinct from the neocortical areas that are the neural substrates for all purely cognitive abilities, like IQ (Bar-On, Tranel, Denburg, & Bechara, 2003). EI mingles neocortical and subcortical skills, combining affective and cognitive abilities.

This marks a fundamental difference from competencies like technical skills, which rely solely on purely cognitive, IQ-type abilities based in the neocortex. This difference among types of competence is of more than mere theoretical importance: when it comes to learning in this domain, the brain operates in a different way than is the case when we learn a technical skill. By ignoring this distinction, organizations stand to waste time and money on training approaches that are ineffective. The guidelines posted on this website for “Best Practices” in EI training outline the most effective ways to help people boost this skill set, in contrast to methods that work well for technical skills.

So whether one uses the term “emotional intelligence” or “EI competence” for this set of human abilities seems to me of less practical concern than whether the working relationship between the two levels are well understood.

References

Dreyfus, C. & Mangino, M. (2001, April). Developing emotional intelligence competencies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Cambridge, MA.

Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of emotional intelligence. Brain, 126, 1790-2000.

--

See Steve Hein's critique


Steve Hein's critique Goleman's response to Caruso's comments

Article copied from the EI Consortium website

Comment on D. Caruso, Defining the Inkblot Called Emotional Intelligence
Submitted by: Daniel Goleman, Ph.D.

Apples and Applesauce

January 2005

My comments in italics.

 

 

David Caruso’s insightful and well-balanced response...

kissing up to David

...characterizes the three main models of EI in terms of a framework hinted at in my essay with Robert Emmerling.

hinted at?!

Caruso then proposes that the three main models in the field each belong in a different domain: the Bar-On model reflecting a “trait” approach, my own a “competence” perspective,

how do Emmerling and Boyatzis feel about being left out when Goleman says "my own.."?

and the Mayer-Salovey model an “intelligence” theory.

why does he put intelligence in quotes? Seems like he is mocking David, Jack etc.

While this seems reasonable, I feel a need ...

Seems reasonable? What is Goleman really saying here? That he disagrees? That he thinks David is misleading us or just isn't smart enough to know the difference between what just "seems reasonable" and what actually is? And what about "I feel a need.."? Is this a good example of emotional literacy? How does Goleman really feel? Defensive? Superior?

...to clarify this proposed categorization in terms of a more careful analysis...

a more careful analysis? He implies, not very subltly, that David's anaylisis was not very "careful"

of the relationship between a competence and the underlying intelligence upon which it builds.

ok, this part I agree with. This is like me saying there is a difference between innate/inborn EI potential (raw EI) and applied EI or what I sometimes call "EQ" as compared to "EI"

I believe that there may be a problem here with logical types – more specifically, that emotional intelligence and EI competence are intimately related, but not of the same order. Rather, one emerges from the other. Instead of apples and oranges, it’s apples and applesauce.

Goleman is a smart ass. I imagine he feels pretty proud of himself for coming up with that. If he did come up with it, but knowing Goleman he stole the idea from someone else. Also, first he says "I believe that there may be a problem here...." as if he is not too sure and doesn't want to appear to be making an absolute statement, then he says arrogantly, "It's apples and applesauce" as if we are supposed to just believe him without question now.

So the proposed division may have the unintended effect of obscuring important connections between aspects of emotional intelligence, by making them appear more unrelated than they actually are.

Goleman has a silver tongue. The way he writes is so smooth that he says shit which is hard to argue with, but still doesn't quite seem right. It takes a long time to figure out what he is really saying, then try to critique it. And he goes back to "may have...", trying not to sound like the arrogant person he actually is underneath his disguise. (Here I ask a friend of mine who knows him personally to correct me if I am wrong in labeling him as arrogant.)

Anyhow, Goleman is saying that Caruso is confusing us by talking about their being a difference between intelligence and competence. Actually, I feel more confused when I read what Goleman writes!

Take as an analog the abilities of a gifted architect, which depend on a fundamental talent for spatial thinking. IQ tests include spatial thinking in the standard array of abilities they assess. However, simply scoring well on spatial abilities in itself would be insufficient for success as an architect – what’s needed in addition is years spent cultivating the ways the person can apply her talent in spatial thinking to what an architect does. In other words, a gift for spatial thinking offers a platform upon which the craft of architecture can build.

I pretty much agree with Goleman here. But then he says this...

Architectural skill can be seen as an emergent property of spatial ability, one that only emerges with years of proper training.

...and I think of a child who is naturally gifted with emotional intelligence. I believe this child is already capable of emotional understanding and problem solving. And without special training, but merely by being left alone to observe what works and what doesn't in life, this child will turn into a teen with special emotional problem solving skills. And when Goleman uses the word "proper" he sounds too British. I would not trust Goleman for one second to tell me what "proper" was. It is a completely subjective word, as is the word "appropriate", another word people like Goleman use.

Likewise, the EI competencies are based on a platform of emotional intelligence,

Goleman is trying to mislead us again. And confuse us. He avoids the direct question of, for example, is optimism based on emotional intelligence? And when he says "likewise" he is trying to tell us that what he is doing is the same as in the example of the architect, but he hasn't given us any real evidence of this. He just says next "the EI competencies are based on a platform of emotional intelligence."

In other words, Goleman is still just basically trying to get us to believe what he says, just because he says it. We still have no more concrete information about how something like optimism is "based on a platform" of EI. By the way expression "based on a platform of emotional intelligence" seems to be a new expression he has come up with in another attempt to to talk his way around the real criticism of his writing. Like always, Goleman's writing sounds very convincing, very articulate. But we have to do a more "careful" analysis!

By the way, this is what

as I’ve proposed in my essay on this website, An EI-Based Theory of Performance In a study of high-performers at Johnson & Johnson,

here there is typo it seems. It looks like they left out the period after Performance. I had to read this a few times to see what Goleman was actually saying. Anyhow, so now he tries to confuse and mislead us some more with more "facts" and studies.

each of these EI competencies was found to have a distinct developmental history over many years in a person’s life (Dreyfus & Mangino, 2001).

So what? Just because each of what he calls Ei competencies was "found to have a distinct developmental history over many years in a person’s life", that doesn't mean any of these "competencies" are based on EI.

For instance, a woman who was an outstanding team leader described how she had honed this EI competence beginning as a coach for her school’s field hockey team in junior high school.

This makes me think about what the world really needs. Do we need more people who can coach sports teams? So what if these people become an "outstanding team leader" in some cosmetics company or whatever later in life? This doesn't impress me. I say we need more individualists and less "teams" and "team leaders." The USA is so full of this kind of stuff. To me it is a bit like saying a woman who was a successful football coach of her girls highschool football team later proved to be an outstanding platoon leader in the army. In other words she had a talent for getting people to obey her and go kill people without thinking about anyone's feelings.

With each such iteration in the course of life,

"iteration"?

people can spontaneously build the skill sets that are identified in the organizational context as ‘EI competence’.

in the organizational context? What about in the family? Or in a personal relationship. Everything is about teams and organizations, in other words, mostly business organizations. And, let's face it, this is where the money is, so that is what I would say is really motivating Goleman to try to confuse the business types.

Lacking such serendipitous experiences in life, people can intentionally cultivate any of the EI competences, with the proper model of learning.

more flowery, but vague and "unscientific" language. And I wouldn't say it was "serendipitous" that that woman was a coach of her school's field hockey team. I would say she was a person who had a need to control others, to boss them around, and she found a way to do that easily using the school team. Then she later found out she could make more money in business. I'd like to know just what company she works for and what she does. And I'd like to talk to her kids or her husband. I'd like to know if she is doing something which is really helping the world now with all her natural talent for bossing people around. (Sorry, I mean "team leadership.") I'd like to do a little more "careful" analysis of this woman.

And I would also like to suggest that the most emotionally intelligent people in the world, the emotional geniuses, won't be found inside any organzations. They won't be able to put up with all the politics, pressure to conform, to compete. They will have different values. They won't value the things that organizations reward nor will they value the rewards that organizations use to motivate people. Take for example, a sales manager in a cosmetics company. The organization values selling make up because that is how it makes money. The organization then rewards the sales manager with money. I would guess that a true emotional genious is not motivated by making money and he or she does not place a high value on selling anything, especially not cosmetics.

Then Goleman tries to impress us with his "references", as he was taught to do at Harvard. But the first one seems to be just more marketing propoganda he used inside his own little group of friends, the EI Consortium, and if the second has anything to do with the difference between inborn EI potential and EI "competencies" later in life, I totally missed it. If you see something I missed, please let me know!

S. Hein
Feb 7,2005
Chachapoyas, Peru

References

Dreyfus, C. & Mangino, M. (2001, April). Developing emotional intelligence competencies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Cambridge, MA.

Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of emotional intelligence. Brain, 126, 1790-2000.


Some pics of Dan