Sizing up emotions

Do you realize how your feelings affect your judgment? Can you openly acknowledge your weaknesses? Do you have “presence”?

More to the point: Would your co-workers and boss agree with your answers?

It’s worth thinking about. Because in the last 10 years, these kinds of inquiries have made their way into employee development programs, management coaching seminars and selection criteria for upper-management positions. The answers help measure what is one of the most popular concepts in workplace psychology: emotional intelligence.

Daniel Goleman, a journalist and author of the 1995 bestselling book “Emotional Intelligence,” describes this quality as a type of sixth sense -- one distinct from educational achievement or book smarts that allows people to skillfully manage their emotions and perceive those of others. Goleman and others who have since commercialized tests based on this idea say that emotional intelligence trumps previous pop-psych theories of workplace behavior: It can actually predict success, better than IQ, and accounts for an astounding two-thirds of the skills of top-flight leaders.

These claims sound so authoritative that thousands of business consultants and executive coaches have adopted emotional intelligence as a working theory for evaluating and advising companies. In 2001, Johnson & Johnson began measuring emotional aptitude in employees in its consumer products division being considered for key management jobs. Avon Products Inc. uses similar measures of emotional competence to evaluate employees and train managers. In all, roughly 10% of Fortune 1,000 companies have used emotional intelligence concepts in employee development, according to estimates by the Hay Group, a Philadelphia-based firm that markets the programs.

“We’ve developed a seven-hour training program on emotional intelligence, and about 500 people a year go through it,” said Stephen Sutton, organization development manager at BB&T; Corp., a large financial services company based in Winston-Salem, N.C. “We have adjusted a lot of budgets over the past year, but not this one. We believe it really helps people grow as employees.”

*

Skepticism about the hype

But some social scientists and psychologists are skeptical of the claims being made about the theory, including the two researchers who coined the term “emotional intelligence” in 1990.

“We have not made claims about this being a powerful predictor of success, and think it’s unlikely that they’re true,” said John Mayer, a University of New Hampshire psychologist who, with Peter Salovey of Yale University, continues to research the concept.

“I think many in the field feel that the whole concept of emotional intelligence has been over-hyped,” said Gerald Matthews, a psychologist at the University of Cincinnati and coauthor of “Emotional Intelligence, Myth and Science” (MIT 2002). “It’s quite amazing how this kind of movement can take off without any good empirical data to support it.”

Measurements of emotional intelligence vary depending on who’s doing the testing, and for what purpose. Typically, commercial programs involve asking people to complete a self-evaluation, rating their patience, flexibility, decisiveness and emotional self-awareness. Peers and co-workers are asked to do a similar evaluation of that person. Counselors compare the results from the self-test with reports from peers, or with comparable national or international test results. Counselors may then use the results to discuss similarities and differences between how individuals perceive themselves and how co-workers view them.

For example, a counselor or coach might point out to a taciturn manager that her silences frighten or confuse co-workers, or to a jocular executive that his jokes can be unnerving. A manager who believes he or she is open and attentive to people’s needs may discover that most co-workers consider him or her aloof and unapproachable.

According to proponents, emotional intelligence can be used to rate leadership skills including self-confidence, moral character, adaptability, motivation, initiative, a sense of humor and the ability to manage conflict.

But the broadness of this definition of emotional intelligence provides another target for critics. “It seems to include so many disparate things it’s hard to know what we’re measuring, except maybe a kind of introspection,” said Edwin Locke, a psychologist who studies business at the University of Maryland. “Good businessmen and women are not known primarily for their introspection; they’re very externally focused, and in complex businesses they have to have real, rational intelligence. And that seems to be the one thing that’s not included” in the definition.

Contrary to common perception, experts say, traditional tests of general mental ability (GMA) or IQ do not measure some single, fixed genetic aptitude. They measure a variety of mental skills, as well as the ability to learn -- qualities that are partly linked to genes. These generally include numeric ability, verbal fluency and spatial aptitude (the ability to rotate and visualize objects mentally). Each of these skills functions differently in each individual: A mechanic may have sublime spatial skills but limited numeric ability, and vice versa for an accountant. But the idea is that by measuring several things at once you detect an intelligence that shares all three, said Frank Schmidt, an industrial psychologist who studies intelligence testing at the University of Iowa.

Psychologists have been searching for ways to improve the effectiveness of the GMA test for about a century but have not been able to do so, Schmidt said. A person who scores high on a 15- to 30-minute general mental ability test goes on to become a productive and valued employee about 50% of the time, his research shows.

Although thousands of studies have looked at GMA, there is scant research about emotional intelligence, Schmidt said. But, he adds, “there’s no question that people like the sound of emotional intelligence much better than they do things like ‘general mental ability’ or ‘IQ.’ ”

Measures of emotional intelligence do reflect some rational ability, experts say. The person who can quickly sense his or her rising anger, understand its origin, and then decide if it’s an appropriate emotion in the moment is demonstrating reasoned reflection.

High scores on emotional intelligence tests also appear to reflect enduring personality traits. In particular, psychologists have identified five personality dimensions that tend to remain constant through much of life: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism, and openness or intellectual curiosity.

“If I were a chemist examining emotional intelligence to see what it was made of, I’d say, ‘Hey, what you’ve got here is emotional stability, conscientiousness and agreeableness,’ ” said Frank Landy, a former professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University who now works as a business consultant on psychological testing. “There’s nothing wrong with that -- you’re measuring personality traits and maybe some mental ability. But the point is that it takes massive effort and time to get significant increases in them. You can’t take a weeklong course and walk out as Dale Carnegie.”

Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein, GE’s former Chief Executive Jack Welch, food and decorating entrepreneur Martha Stewart: All have been extremely successful, visionary leaders, but it’s hardly clear that they would ace tests of emotional intelligence. Psychologists who have studied workplace dynamics cite these executives as extraordinary people who might be missed by a program meant to help select leaders based on emotional competency.

“Welch was a tough customer, and I’m not sure I’d call him emotionally sensitive,” said Locke, who has studied GE. “But I think there’s little question he was an excellent leader.”

Steven Berglas, a psychologist at UCLA who also coaches business executives, says emotional intelligence programs are useful in catching managers who are souring work relationships through bullying, arrogance or social awkwardness. “But to the extent that these qualities reflect a deeper emotional disturbance, trying to address them with emotional intelligence workshops or pamphlets is like putting Bengay over a broken bone,” he said. “It’s not only ineffective but may create false hope or exacerbate the situation.”

This is not to say that researchers have abandoned the notion of a separate emotional aptitude. During the last decade Mayer and Salovey have refined measures of emotional intelligence, and now base it on a multidimensional exam in which people assess emotions in pictures and in various social situations. The more adept a person is at identifying sadness, frustration, anger, disappointment and other emotions (as judged by experts), the higher he or she scores.

*

Recognizing moods matter

The test also includes a component that asks people how their moods affect their ability to solve particular kinds of problems. When people are in a good mood, for example, that’s often when they’re most creative. In a low mood, they may be better suited to critical analysis, such as evaluating work on a project. “That would be a good time to edit something, for instance,” said Mayer. “The point is that people who do well on emotional intelligence recognize these relationships between their own moods and the moods’ effect on what they’re doing.”

Researchers have found that people who score high on this 45-minute exam tend to have fewer social problems and get into less trouble than those who do poorly, Mayer said. Several studies are underway to determine whether the test predicts more specific outcomes, such as work success. “We’re seeing some interesting evidence in this area, but it’s not conclusive yet,” Mayer said. “We are really in a gray area -- a funny position with emotional intelligence. On the one hand, we have not made these grand claims you see in the popular press. On the other hand, we defend emotional intelligence and say it absolutely exists and has important predictive power.”

For his part, Goleman considers the growing skepticism surrounding emotional intelligence a natural part of the scientific process. The concept is still new, he said, and only rigorous testing will clarify how it plays out in a person’s life.

His own reviews of data involving business and government leaders suggest that the most successful people have a strong sense of how emotions affect their decisions and workplace relationships. “What you see in these star performers that you don’t see as often in average managers are emotional competencies: empathy, sensitivity, whether the person’s tuned in, can cooperate well, takes initiative. Technical skill is important -- but you can hire other people to do that.”