Drama king (or, is emotional intel just pseudoscience?)

Emotional intelligence means being reflective and not reactive as demonstrated here, right? Or, is Humphrey manipulating that butterfly into believing he has no intention to pounce, when that is not actually the case?

"Emotional Intelligence" (EQ, EI) has been in vogue among practitioners for about 2 decades. Originally popularized by Daniel Goleman based on the work of Salovey and Mayer in 1995 (and at that time, based on very little research), it has since been debated in academic circles.

In 2004, Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts stated the following about emotional intelligence: "the ratio of hyperbole to hard evidence is high, with over-reliance on anecdote, expert opinion, case studies, and unpublished proprietary research."

Now, a decade later, controversy over continues to rage. John Antonakis was quoted in The Atlantic as saying, "practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research."

The common critiques circulating (see list of references below for details) include:

• Not based on good research (though many proponents argue this)
• Not predictive of effective leadership (this is debated, but there is one scholar whose name I cannot recall who has replicated this over and over; the Entrepreneur article talks about this)
• EI in practice can be used as a form of manipulation (see Entrepreneur and The Atlantic in references), and examples call into question the ethics of its application. Kristjánsson makes a compelling argument for the ways in which EI runs contrary to Aristotelian emotional virtue because of its moral shortcomings.  
• Fails to account for cultural and gender differences - for example, loads of research reveal that culture plays a huge role in what behaviors are perceived as "caring" or not, what constitutes civil and polite actions. Rather, the standardized test is highly culturally bound, and couched in middle-class, North American perceptions.

One of the critiques not often addressed in the literature is the problem of epistemology. Readers know that epistemology represents one of Humphrey's main areas of interest and research. If you're not sure what he's talking about, maybe this will help to refresh your memory:

Proponents of EQ/EI are undoubtedly coming at it from a positivist epistemology - this is clear because they are relying on standardized, quantitative tests to measure EQ/EI. Based on their views on the nature of knowledge and truth, things like "emotion" (or lack of awareness of it) can be captured in multiple choice tests. Rather, the complexity of emotions, the situational variables, and a whole host of other features of "emotion" as a construct cannot be reduced to simplistic measurement (or in the words of Lewis, Rees, Hudson & Bleakley, 2005, "measuring the unmeasurable")!

Humphrey recognizes that emotions are important and valid parts of every life - and in fact, he concurs with a very prominent philosopher who has identified emotions as reasons in the informal logic and argumentation community. Yet, the reduction of emotions to a multiple-choice, standardized instrument troubles him.

What do you think? Can EI/EQ scales overcome the well-documented shortcomings of similar tests like IQ? Do EI/EQ inventories fall short of virtue ethics? As a construct, are they useful to the study of leadership and/or organizational behavior in their current form?


References:
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “big five”: An extension and rejoinder.Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171-182.
Fambrough, M. J., & Hart, R. K. (2008). Emotions in leadership development: A critique of emotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources,10(5), 740-758.
Grant, A. (2014, January 2). The dark side of emotional intelligence. The Atlantic [online ed]
Kristjánsson, K. (2006). “EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE” IN THE CLASSROOM? AN ARISTOTELIAN CRITIQUE. Educational Theory, 56(1), 39-56.
Lewis, N. J., Rees, C. E., Hudson, J. N., & Bleakley, A. (2005). Emotional intelligence medical education: Measuring the unmeasurable?. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10(4), 339-355.
Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on developing emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 225-237.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. MIT press.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 179-196.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled?. Japanese Psychological Research, 54(2), 105-127.
Murphy, K.R. (Ed.) A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pre-pub version of Chapter 14, Evaluating the Claims, here; a review of that book here)
Tuback, S. (2014, September 14). Don't believe the hype around emotional intelligence. Entrepreneur [online ed]
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207–225
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 371-399.

This is not a reference for this piece, but an entire website exists to describe how Goleman misled readers when he developed and began promoting EI. Goleman's rebuttal is here, but as you can see from the comments, doesn't satisfy critics.