Issues in Emotional Intelligence Commentary – 5
( www.eiconsortium.org
)
We must support research programs investigating these, and other, questions.
Practitioners must join forces with researchers to conduct badly-needed outcome and
training research, as well as dozens of critical validity studies. In each case, such studies
need to examine what EI adds, if anything, to our understanding of professional
workplace and personal outcomes based upon existing theories and models of personality,
competencies and intelligence.
This does not mean that we must stand on the sidelines until all of the numbers are in
before we can apply the knowledge that we have acquired. We need to be open about the
limitations of the field and recommend applications that we know are responsible and
which do no harm to our clients.
Take Charge and Take Responsibility
The bright light of the field has attracted many different people. Legitimate researchers
and savvy practitioners have been drawn to the field. However, they have also been
joined by those making unsubstantiated research claims and by intellectually-dishonest
business consultants selling their wares to the unsuspecting consumer. None of us
condones dishonest research or practice – far from it. It angers me to hear of such abuses,
as it should all of us. (Anger, after all, is an appropriate emotion that rises from a sense
of injustice.)
When we become aware of such misuse, we need to take steps to correct the situation.
It’s not up to any one individual to claim to have the last word on EI, but it is up to all of
us to make sure that the field is being represented accurately and responsibly. What does
this mean? For example, if we are misquoted, or discover an article making some
unfounded or fantastic claim, we need to speak up and speak out.
This is not always easy to do, as I have found out. I have seen some of our own group’s
work unintentionally misrepresented and then repeated, in good faith, by others. It’s a
frustrating, problem, but a correctable one.
There are also opportunities to be proactive. In an article (in a peer-reviewed journal)
authored by my colleagues Jack Mayer, Peter Salovey and myself, we included a brief
disclaimer noting that as authors of the MSCEIT we receive royalties on MSCEIT sales.
A soon-to-be-published book, The Emotionally Intelligent Manager (Caruso & Salovey),
touts the importance of the ability model of EI in the workplace, but provides a number
of cautions and points out the limitations of our model and existing research.
Clarifying the importance of analytical intelligence, or IQ, is another example of
responsible reporting. After repeated claims that “EQ” is twice as important as IQ
appeared in the popular press, and unfortunately, in the scientific literature, Goleman has
actively tried to clarify and to correct this erroneous impression. In essence, Goleman
has shown that IQ, while important, loses its predictive power in a world where everyone
is smart. (This is the restriction of range problem.) The most recent example of this