Emotional Intelligence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 86:
👎 '''Criticism'''. Scholars have challenged the construct’s scope and measurement: {{Tooltip|Frank J. Landy}} argued that EI research suffered from historical and scientific ambiguities and over-generalized claims (2005).<ref name="Landy2005">{{cite journal |last=Landy |first=Frank J. |date=2005 |title=Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence |journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior |volume=26 |pages=411–424 |doi=10.1002/job.317 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.317 |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref> Edwin A. Locke contended that EI, as popularly defined, is not a distinct intelligence and risks becoming “so broadly defined as to be meaningless” (2005).<ref name="Locke2005">{{cite journal |last=Locke |first=Edwin A. |date=2005 |title=Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept |journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior |volume=26 |pages=425–431 |doi=10.1002/job.318 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.318 |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref> Methodologists have also noted heterogeneity and psychometric challenges across EI measures, urging careful use (2019 review).<ref name="OConnor2019">{{cite journal |last=O'Connor |first=Peter J. |author2=Hill, Alex |author3=Kay, Sue |author4=Martin, Brett |date=2019 |title=The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of Current Tools |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=10 |pages=1116 |url=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01116/full |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref> In cultural criticism, {{Tooltip|Merve Emre}} argued that the book’s managerial framing promotes a regimen of self-monitoring aligned with corporate priorities (''{{Tooltip|The New Yorker}}'', 12 April 2021).<ref name="NewYorker2021">{{cite news |last=Emre |first=Merve |title=The Repressive Politics of Emotional Intelligence |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/the-repressive-politics-of-emotional-intelligence |work=The New Yorker |date=12 April 2021 |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref>
🌍 '''Impact & adoption'''. In management, Goleman extended the book’s framework in the widely read ''{{Tooltip|Harvard Business Review}}'' article “{{Tooltip|What Makes a Leader?}}” (originally 1998; reprinted January 2004), which emphasized EI as a leadership sine qua non.<ref name="HBR2004">{{cite web |title=What Makes a Leader? |url=https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader |website=Harvard Business Review |date=January 2004 |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref> Corporations drew on EI models; a {{Tooltip|Johnson & Johnson}} multi-rater study reported that higher-performing leaders scored higher on emotional-competence clusters (2006).<ref name="JJ2006">{{cite web |title=Emotional Competence and Leadership Excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Study |url=https://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/jj_ei_study.pdf |website=Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref> In education, the SEL movement gained institutional footing ({{Tooltip|CASEL}} was formed in 1994), and educators widely cited Goleman’s book for popularizing SEL in the mid-1990s.<ref name="CASELHistory">{{cite web |title=Our History |url=https://casel.org/about-us/our-history/ |website=CASEL |publisher=Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning |access-date=27 October 2025}}</ref><ref name="Edutopia2011">{{cite web |title=Social and Emotional Learning: A Short History |url=https://www.edutopia.org/social-emotional-learning-history |website=
== Related content & more ==
| |||