The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence

[Vasilisa]

The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence
ADAM GRANT
JAN 2 2014
The Atlantic

Excerpt:
* * *
Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we’ll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we’ll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging researchled by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.

The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”

Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote’s team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague “how excited we all are with what he is doing,” but at the same time, “distancing my organization from the project,” so “when it blows up,” the company’s founder would blame the colleague.

Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people “intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves,” Professor Kilduff’s team writes. “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”

Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, “Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts.” However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often “breaks down in tears with frustration,” Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but “I told her it has to be used. I said, ‘Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting.” When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there’s a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.

In settings where emotions aren’t running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn’t consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions—they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.

However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.

< Full Story >

Can Emotional Intelligence Be Taught​

 

[WhoCares]

Wow, it only took 20yrs for them to realise that book is a tool for sociopaths...way to go. Of course any skill can be used for personal gain and where most people are concerned personal gain is a goal. Funnily enough I work a job where emotional intelligence must rate high on the must haves and high performing list. But my observation is that the most effective on my team are usually the least emotionally switched on. The reason why I say that is because people throw their emotions at you all day, if you get wrapped up in the neverending neediness of the people we deal with you cannot focus on the tasks at hand. Attention whoring is very prevalent in western society, so people try to play on our sympathies all day long in order to get free stuff and attention from it. You have to be able to shut down the heart strings until you find someone who truly needs it.

The truly needy rarely ask, they suffer in silence but you can always tell they are in pain. They are the ones to spend what little time you have with, to make the little extra effort and to read their needs and accomodate them. People who are too emotionally open in this job burn out quickly or they become bitter at speed rendering them ineffective. They also take it hard when someone plays them and tend to carry that venom with them all day instead of brushing it off. I find that task orientated people are efficent and effective while still having the nous to notice a real need and attend to it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

That's exactly right. But it's obvious, no? Nice little article though, I agree that for too long EI has been touted as some sort of panacea for workplace harmony.

 

[danseen]

hmm.. so if I use kitchen knife to hurt somebody maliciously, all vegetable/meat knives should be banned?

err... don't humans use tools to their own ends?

 

[LittleV]

This reminds me of a citation I've recently used: https://www.zotero.org/nico_cardona/items/itemKey/BS7Q9XUE

 

[Coriolis]

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

This paragraph holds the key, namely teaching everyone how this works so they can recognize emotional manipulation when it is happening to them. They can learn to guard their emotions in adversarial situations, and be more open with them among trustworthy friends. Coupled with learning critical thinking skills, they can separate the objective content from the emotional content of speeches, sales pitches, and other attempts at persuasion.

I have always been leery of attempts to promote emotional intelligence, as they seem designed to reprogram some of us away from who we are and into something else, much as people for a time tried to make lefties use their right hands.

 

[chubber]

However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.

< Full Story >

Can Emotional Intelligence Be Taught​

That last paragraph hits home for me. Because it is not making me productive. In fact it made it worse for me after I went on emotional intelligence training.

 

[Evo]

Wow, it only took 20yrs for them to realise that book is a tool for sociopaths...way to go. Of course any skill can be used for personal gain and where most people are concerned personal gain is a goal. Funnily enough I work a job where emotional intelligence must rate high on the must haves and high performing list. But my observation is that the most effective on my team are usually the least emotionally switched on. The reason why I say that is because people throw their emotions at you all day, if you get wrapped up in the neverending neediness of the people we deal with you cannot focus on the tasks at hand. Attention whoring is very prevalent in western society, so people try to play on our sympathies all day long in order to get free stuff and attention from it. You have to be able to shut down the heart strings until you find someone who truly needs it.

The truly needy rarely ask, they suffer in silence but you can always tell they are in pain. They are the ones to spend what little time you have with, to make the little extra effort and to read their needs and accomodate them. People who are too emotionally open in this job burn out quickly or they become bitter at speed rendering them ineffective. They also take it hard when someone plays them and tend to carry that venom with them all day instead of brushing it off. I find that task orientated people are efficent and effective while still having the nous to notice a real need and attend to it.

Do we work at the same place lmao?

This paragraph holds the key, namely teaching everyone how this works so they can recognize emotional manipulation when it is happening to them. They can learn to guard their emotions in adversarial situations, and be more open with them among trustworthy friends. Coupled with learning critical thinking skills, they can separate the objective content from the emotional content of speeches, sales pitches, and other attempts at persuasion.

I have always been leery of attempts to promote emotional intelligence, as they seem designed to reprogram some of us away from who we are and into something else, much as people for a time tried to make lefties use their right hands.

Hmm I don't know about that.

I don't know if it's that bad of a thing to take people a little out of their comfort zone. I think that we should be feeding our strengths up to a certain age. So that we have proper grounding. And then maybe incorporate a manageable amount of challenges. (This is nothing like the real world though. I'm just saying...an ideal world would work on strengths and then work on other areas as well later on)

***

Anyways my opinion is that people that are stupid are going to do stupid things, no matter what. This is just an excuse for people that are already assholes, to have a justifiable reason to be more of an asshole. Words don't hurt, emotions do.


Also this article is portraying EI in a very different light than what I have read. In college I took EI seriously when I read a book on it.

What I took away from that book was that if you have an agitated customer in front of you, don't take what they're saying personally. Let them be agitated and you should work on reframing your mind so that you are not letting them have control of your thoughts. Beliefs are just repeated thoughts, and (for this example) a belief that all customers should not yell at you is a false belief...in this case...a customer yelling at you is contradicting your belief....which could likely sour your mood if you don't reconfigure your thoughts...which leads to having unproductive emotions that could have been avoided in the first place. It's about being prepared.

What I learned was only the side about controlling your own emotions though. In this way you control others' emotions by modeling appropriate behavior. You don't actually CONTROL other ppls' emotions though. Nor do you take a manipulative approach to trying to control other ppls' emotions. You manipulate your own emotions and as a by-product you manipulate others' emotions. (in a good way) There was never an information about you controlling other peoples' emotions.

That brings me to another point. People take the word "manipulate" as a bad thing. But I would like you to name one person that doesn't manipulate another person in one way or another. I think of the word manipulate as if it were replaced by the synonym "influence." And then in this way, you cannot be influenced or manipulated if you don't want to be.

 

[Coriolis]

That last paragraph hits home for me. Because it is not making me productive. In fact it made it worse for me after I went on emotional intelligence training.

I agree, and have had similar experiences. I tried earlier in my career to implement some of this stuff in dealing with new employees, and it just caused confusion. My "native" approach would have been more effective, with less misunderstanding.

I don't know if it's that bad of a thing to take people a little out of their comfort zone. I think that we should be feeding our strengths up to a certain age. So that we have proper grounding. And then maybe incorporate a manageable amount of challenges. (This is nothing like the real world though. I'm just saying...an ideal world would work on strengths and then work on other areas as well later on)

So you think it was beneficial to tie those kids' left hands behind their backs to force them to use their right as primary, at least for awhile? Wonder why it didn't occur to them to do the reverse to right-handers.

 

[Evo]

So you think it was beneficial to tie those kids' left hands behind their backs to force them to use their right as primary, at least for awhile? Wonder why it didn't occur to them to do the reverse to right-handers.

No, absolutely not. I don't think it's beneficial like that. And the most important word here is KIDS. That's just wrong. The point I was getting at, which I failed to do I see, was that we should be gradually challenged. Which is quite the opposite of what happened. The kids should just use what comes naturally to them. Then once they have a grounding....like years, upon years, upon years of it...I don't see a problem in challenging adults in learning how to develop different skills. And it's not right to just ask that of lefties, no.

 

[two cents]

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

This paragraph holds the key, namely teaching everyone how this works so they can recognize emotional manipulation when it is happening to them. They can learn to guard their emotions in adversarial situations, and be more open with them among trustworthy friends. Coupled with learning critical thinking skills, they can separate the objective content from the emotional content of speeches, sales pitches, and other attempts at persuasion.

I agree with this assessment. I would also like to add that not "touting the benefits of emotional intelligence" will not eliminate people who are masterful at using it for nefarious purposes. Those people have existed before the emotional intelligence craze, and will continue to exit.

I have always been leery of attempts to promote emotional intelligence, as they seem designed to reprogram some of us away from who we are and into something else, much as people for a time tried to make lefties use their right hands.

On the other hand, I disagree with this. I think that people who have extremely low emotional intelligence can benefit significantly from learning the basics and improving their performance. Even a slight improvement in this situation can garner large improvements in their interpersonal relationships and, by extension, success and personal satisfaction.

I don't think explicit instruction can actually "reprogram" a social ignoramus into a masterful manipulator, but arguing that it's not a good idea to teach people the basic tools to understand and manage their own (and, to some extent, other people's) emotions because it might turn them into something they are not is akin to arguing that teaching things like critical thinking skills, or reading, is counterproductive, because people might access and consider new ideas and become something they are not as a result.

I don't think that not understanding what's going on or not having tools to handle a situation is ever a better option than understanding and having the tools.

And as far as having high EI be counterproductive to your occupation... Yes, it's absolutely true that focusing too much on the "human side" of an occupation that doesn't have much of one will actually make you less effective at your job. However, an accountant or a scientist or a mechanic still goes home at the end of the day and becomes a parent, sibling, friend, child, spouse, etc, and I'll just bet emotional intelligence actually helps in those occupations. Yeah, it's unfortunate that sometimes self-selection bias doesn't steer people into the optimal occupations for their skillset, but, once again, improving the overall emotional intelligence of large populations through some basic instruction will hardly make people less able scientists, accountants, and mechanics, and is more likely to simply equip those whose skills are deficient to better deal with things like office politics, which even accountants (and definitely scientists!) have to deal with (and probably help mechanics with customer interaction).

 

[Coriolis]

On the other hand, I disagree with this. I think that people who have extremely low emotional intelligence can benefit significantly from learning the basics and improving their performance. Even a slight improvement in this situation can garner large improvements in their interpersonal relationships and, by extension, success and personal satisfaction.

I don't think explicit instruction can actually "reprogram" a social ignoramus into a masterful manipulator, but arguing that it's not a good idea to teach people the basic tools to understand and manage their own (and, to some extent, other people's) emotions because it might turn them into something they are not is akin to arguing that teaching things like critical thinking skills, or reading, is counterproductive, because people might access and consider new ideas and become something they are not as a result.

I don't think that not understanding what's going on or not having tools to handle a situation is ever a better option than understanding and having the tools.

It all comes down to what exactly is being taught. It is one thing to teach people how to recognize and understand emotions better, so we are not manipulated. It's quite another to encourage specific types of emotional behavior. People who are not naturally attuned to emotions would do well to learn the first, but should not be pushed into the second. It's almost like the wisecracks about "sexual harassment training" in some workplaces: are we learning better sexual harassment techniques? Of course not, we're learning to understand it so we can prevent it and its harmful effects.

However, an accountant or a scientist or a mechanic still goes home at the end of the day and becomes a parent, sibling, friend, child, spouse, etc, and I'll just bet emotional intelligence actually helps in those occupations.

I would prefer to be my genuine self with these people, rather than go through life creating false impressions for those I care most about.

 

[garbage]

It's a tool, like any other sort of knowledge. It can be used in a bunch of different ways. John Wayne Gacy was a "charming monster."

Recipients of an emotionally persuasive message should, of course, balance their responses with a bit of critical thinking.

 

[Coriolis]

It's a tool, like any other sort of knowledge. It can be used in a bunch of different ways. John Wayne Gacy was a "charming monster."

Recipients of an emotionally persuasive message should, of course, balance their responses with a bit of critical thinking.

This has come up on other threads. I find critical thinking skills even more essential than emotional intelligence skills. They address some of the same goals, and are even more broadly applicable.

 

[Amargith]

This has come up on other threads. I find critical thinking skills even more essential than emotional intelligence skills. They address some of the same goals, and are even more broadly applicable.

Actually, I'd consider them specialisations in the same field. As for applicability, i suspect that might have something to do with preference and experience within that field of specialty.

 

[The Iron Giant]

Fascinating article.

In my understanding, emotional intelligence isn't simply the ability to control one's emotions, but rather an understanding of our emotions and a level of comfort with them. From that perspective, it's as though the article is warning about sociopathy, not emotional intelligence. Right?

I also think that if someone is emotionally intelligent, they will be empathic, and would feel wrong about manipulating others, but I guess that would come down to values. I definitely agree that critical thinking skills are very important.

Maybe I thought emotional intelligence was something that it isn't. Is it naïve of me to assume that two emotionally intelligent people will tend to recognize emotional manipulation quickly, and therefore not really be able to manipulate each other, even if they want to?

 

[Coriolis]

In my understanding, emotional intelligence isn't simply the ability to control one's emotions, but rather an understanding of our emotions and a level of comfort with them. From that perspective, it's as though the article is warning about sociopathy, not emotional intelligence. Right?

I also think that if someone is emotionally intelligent, they will be empathic, and would feel wrong about manipulating others, but I guess that would come down to values. I definitely agree that critical thinking skills are very important.

This is why I made a distinction between encouraging understanding, and encouraging behavior. The first gives people information; the second tells them what do to with it.

Maybe I thought emotional intelligence was something that it isn't. Is it naïve of me to assume that two emotionally intelligent people will tend to recognize emotional manipulation quickly, and therefore not really be able to manipulate each other, even if they want to?

I had this thought as well. It's a bit like Ronald Reagan saying we should just give our SDI technology to the Soviet Union. Then neither side, supposedly, could launch a nuclear attack against the other, and everyone would be safe.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I also think that if someone is emotionally intelligent, they will be empathic, and would feel wrong about manipulating others, but I guess that would come down to values. I definitely agree that critical thinking skills are very important.

A problem (I have) with this article is that they’re equating “emotional intelligence” with “emotional skills” (the writer actually uses them interchangeably). Using one’s understanding of emotions to navigate one’s external environment is a different thing than understanding how to be honest with oneself about one’s emotions.

I haven’t read Goleman’s book on emotional intelligence, so I’m not sure how he defines it- but personally yeah, I would also normally assume the phrase “emotionally intelligent” meant the latter (understanding how to be honest with oneself about one’s emotions). As such, I would think that manipulating others would be a sign of not having emotional intelligence.

 

[prplchknz]

so basically the article is saying I'm a terrible manipulator because I have very little control over my emotions and have low eq? Well then there must only be one way to skin a cat.

 

[Seymour]

so basically the article is saying I'm a terrible manipulator because I have very little control over my emotions and have low eq? Well then there must only be one way to skin a cat.

I think his view is that there there are multiple aspects to emotional intelligence:

The model introduced by Daniel Goleman[25] focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines five main EI constructs (for more details see "What Makes A Leader" by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review 1998):

• Self-awareness – the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
• Self-regulation – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
• Social skill – managing relationships to move people in the desired direction
• Empathy - considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions
• Motivation - being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement.

Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.[26] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere "pop psychology" (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008).

So those aspects cover a pretty broad swath, and aspects of them might not fall under what the term "emotional intelligence" initially brings to mind. For example both "social skill" and "motivation" (as defined above) have a leadership/workplace feel to them, which makes sense given Goleman's focus on leadership.

Also, a fair amount of EI research depended on instruments that depend on self-reporting, which can be problematic.

EDIT: I find the "Ability Model" to be a little broader:

• Perceiving emotions – the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts—including the ability to identify one's own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
• Using emotions – the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
• Understanding emotions – the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
• Managing emotions – the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

Would be interesting to speculate about how those aspect related to type-related strengths (there's an article here summarizing some findings).