Introduction

The main purpose of this page is to publish my concerns with Goleman and his writing on emotional intelligence. For example, I want to let people know about the differences between his claims and those of the academic theorists and researchers. I also want to open people's eyes about who Dan Goleman may really be behind his public image; what his possible motivations and intentions may be and what his values and beliefs seem to be. I believe it is important for the public to take all of this into consideration when reading Goleman's writings and thinking about his version of emotional intelligence.

Some people who have read this page have written that my crtitique is too personal, but others have thanked me for affirming what they also felt or suspected, or for opening their eyes up so as to help prevent them from being misled in their studies or professions.

Before I begin with those concerns, I want to list the reasons I appreciate his work. For example:

- Without his books it is unlikely you would be visiting this site
- He helped me understand the evolutionary survival value of our emotions
- He has raised awareness of emotions and their importance around the world
- His work led me to get to know Jack Mayer and David Caruso
- He introduced me to my amygdala, who I have affectionately called "Amy"

S. Hein
Jan 2006

How Goleman misled the public

It is hard to say what Goleman's intentions were when he wrote his book in 1995, but as time goes by it seems to me his intentions were more to persuade people to share his views than to inform them in a truly scientific manner. There is also doubt about whether he was even originally planning to write a book about emotional intelligence. (see this section).

Regardless of his original intentions, I believe that after 1995 Goleman was consciously misleading the public. I say this because after Goleman's book came out Jack Mayer and Peter Salovey began to publicly criticize Goleman. My web page also publically criticized him for his loose defintion of the term emotional intelligence.

Goleman, though, to my knowledge, has never apologized for anything he has said or written, and never shown much interest in clarifying things. In fact, he simply confused the public more with his 1998 book "Working with Emotional Intelligence."

When reading that book, it is much easier to see Goleman's intentions for writing it. His goal was quite obviously to cater to the Fortune 500 type managers so he could establish himself as a highly paid consultant, a goal which I think it's fair to say he achieved.

In any event, here is a list of the ways I believe he has been misleading people, whether deliberately or not. After the list I provide more detail and support for my statements.

1. He makes unsupported claims about the power and predictive ability of emotional intelligence.

2. His own, self-created definition of emotional intelligence includes aspects of personality and behavior which are not correlated to emotional intelligence as it is scientifically defined. He also interchanges terms such as emotional literacy, emotional health, emotional skill, and emotional competency. He never defines any of these other terms, but he equates them all to emotional intelligence.

3. He tries to make us believe he is presenting something new, when in fact much of what he is reporting has been studied for years under personality research.

4. He implies that anyone can learn emotional intelligence and fails to acknowledge either the relatively fixed nature of the personality traits he includes in his definition of EI or the differences in innate potential among individuals.

5. He presents himself as the sole expert in emotional intelligence and fails to give adequate credit to Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and others.

6. He represents his work as "scientific" when it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

7. His personal beliefs about what is "appropriate" contradict the academic theory concerning the value of our emotions. He still seems to regard emotions as largely something to be controlled and restrained, rather than something to be valued.

8. He has claimed that his ECI -360 test is the "genuine article" when it comes to testing for emotional intelligence, but no one in the academic community seems to think it is even a measure of EI, let alone the "genuine" one.

9. When he wrote his book in 1995 he wanted us to believe the book was about emotional intelligence, but there is strong evidence that Goleman was not intending to write a book about emotional intelligence when he started writing. It seems much more probable that he was actually writing a book about emotional literacy and then later changed the title of the book to "Emotional Intelligence" so his book would have more sales appeal. See more on this.

Now I will give more detail on some of these.

1. Misleading claims about the power and predictive ability of EI

In his 1995 book Goleman on page 34, told us that IQ only contributes to "at best" 20% of "factors that determine life success." He implies, and let's us believe that EI accounts for the other 80%. Here is one quote from Goleman:

(Goleman being interviewed by John O'Neil, Senior Editor of Educational Leadership)
And you contend that emotional intelligence is just as important as the more familiar concept of IQ?

Both types of intelligence are important, but they're important in different ways. IQ contributes, at best, about 20 percent to the factors that determine life success. That leaves 80 percent to everything else. There are many ways in which your destiny in life depends on having the skills that make up emotional intelligence.

From http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/199609/oneil.html
(backup copy)

In fact, because of his misleading statements, many people have made this inaccurate assumption and they are saying things like "scientific research shows that emotional intelligence accounts for 80% of success in work, school and relationships." (see one example of this in the journal Educational Leadership) The truth is there is no research which shows any such thing. (See also my October 2002 editorial

In the 1995 book Goleman also said of emotional intelligence, "...what data exist suggest it can be as powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ." An obvious reason this claim misleads is that when he wrote the book, the only people doing research on emotional intelligence were John Mayer and Peter Salovey. In 1995 Mayer and Salovey were still investigating whether the concept of emotional intelligence was even scientifically valid, and whether their preliminary tests were reliable. When Goleman made his claim in 1995 Mayer and Salovey had not yet done done any research measuring the correlations between emotional intelligence and anything else. It was not until the late 1990's that such research was begun. Now that the research from several independent scientists has tarted to come in we know that Goleman's claim can not be supported.

Mayer, Salovey and Caruso write:

To the unsophisticated reader, bringing up the "80% unaccounted for variance" suggests that there may indeed be a heretofore overlooked variable that truly can predict huge portions of life success. Although that is desirable, no variable studied in a century of psychology has made such a huge contribution. Models of Emotional Intelligence, p. 412)

and

Goleman suggests that emotional intelligence should predict success at many life tasks at levels higher than r = .45. It is not hard to conclude that at least part of the popular excitement surrounding emotional intelligence is due to these very strong claims. If there were truly a psychological entity that could predict widespread success at such levels, it would exceed any finding in a century of research in applied psychology.Models of Emotional Intelligence, p. 403)

Elsewhere Mayer and Cobb write (in reference to Goleman's 1995 book):

...the book claimed that scientists had discovered a link between high emotional intelligence and "prosocial behavior" and that emotional intelligence was "as powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ" in predicting success in life. Such claims rapidly entered the educational policy arena. Writing in Educational Leadership, Scherer (1997, p. 5) echoed Goleman by stating "emotional intelligence, more than IQ, ... is the most reliable predictor of success in life and school." (p 163)

When John Mayer wrote to Goleman and offered him a chance to withdraw his misleading claims about the predictive value of emotional intelligence, he replied that:

"... in some life domains emotional intelligence seems to be more highly correlated with a positive outcome than is a measure of IQ. The domains where this can occur are "soft" -- those where, e.g. emotional self-regulation, or empathy may be more salient skills than are purely cognitive abilities, such as health or marital success... In those cases where EI is more salient than IQ, the predicative power for IQ would be lower than usual." Models of Emotional Intelligence, p. 403)

To me, this was a very evasive answer. Also, it sounds like saying, "In those cases where height is more important than IQ, such as dunking a basketball or hanging curtains, height is a better predictor of success than IQ."

Another example of a misleading claim from Goleman's corporate partner, Hay/McBer

...now compelling research indicates that emotional intelligence is twice as important as IQ plus technical skills for outstanding performance. When IQ test scores are correlated with how well people perform in their careers, the highest estimate of how much difference IQ accounts for is about 25%.

from ei.haygroup.com/about_ei

Note: In an interview with Training and Development Magazine Goleman is quoted as saying that the EI "competencies" are "... twice as
important as cognitive ability and technical expertise combined." Training & Development, Oct 1998 v52 n10 p26.

More claims from Hay/McBer

High-EI organizations have greater agility, resilience and focus

High-EI executive teams out-perform business targets by 15-20%

Studies attribute 90% of leadership effectiveness to developable EI competencies

EI makes measurable differences in team effectiveness, technical innovation, and sales productivity

EI raises quality of service transactions and reduces customer defections

from haygroup.com/products_and_services

Goleman's premature and exaggerated claims may be likened to a person who happens to read that someone else is studying a new form of medicine. He does a little more reading, attends a few conferences, takes a few notes, and decides this medicine might be helpful in fighting cancer and a wide variety of other diseases as well. He also sees the value to himself in being the first one to promote the medicine as the world's leading cancer cure and best new discovery of the century. He realizes that if he is established as the "expert" or "guru" of this new medicine, he will be rich and famous, whether or not the medicine ever proves to be effective against cancer or anything else. He is smart enough to know that people are desperate for a cure for cancer, that most of them will not bother to do their own research, and that it will take years before enough tests are done to prove him wrong. By that time he will have already gained his fame and fortune. As long as the medicine does no harm, he has nothing to worry about, except perhaps the loss of his integrity, which he may not value as temporary fame and money in the bank.

In the case of Goleman though, there is harm being done. The harm is that Goleman's self-promotion and unsupportable claims have served to trivialized the serious research which is being done by academic scientists. He has caused people around the world to be increasingly skeptical and cynical of what some believe is simply "another new-age American fad." He has also misled Ph.D. and graduate students around the world who were quick to begin studying what they thought was emotional intelligence after Goleman's two books were published. I have personally corresponded with students who have now invested years of their lives in studying his model of emotional intelligence and have used his personality test (which he has marketed as a test of emotional intelligence-- the ECI 360) as their primary scale to study correlations between emotional intelligence and other variables. I am concerned about how these students will if they realize, or when their research committee informs them, that what they thought they were studying may not actually be emotional intelligence at all, and that the test they were using to measure "EI" is more of a personality test than a test of anything which could justly be called emotional intelligence?

In the summer of 2001, for example, I chatted online with a Ph.D. student from Italy in her final year of research who told me "You are scaring me" when I started to explain the problems with Goleman's conceptualization of emotional intelligence. She told me she was already too heavily invested in using the ECI-360 to change to the MEIS or the MSCEIT, so I recommended that she at least point out the discrepancies between the Goleman conceptualization and the Mayer Salovey model. Whatever became of her, I do not know, but I am afraid she could have run into serious trouble defending her dissertation.

2. Problems With His Definition of EI

Besides equating it with emotional literacy, emotional health, emotional skill, and emotional competency, Goleman uses many different definitions of emotional intelligence. At one point he says it includes such "abilities such as being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one's moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize, and to hope." At other places Goleman equates emotional intelligence with "moral character," (p. 234, 285 of 1995 book), "good citizens," (see source) and "decent human beings" (p. 263 of 1995 book) Here is one quote:

even though a high IQ is no guarantee of prosperity, prestige, or happiness in life, our schools and our culture fixate on academic abilities, ignoring emotional intelligence, a set of traits-some might call it character-that also matters immensely for our personal destiny. p. 36

Goleman even says that the ability to "follow directions" is an "element of emotional intelligence" ( p. 193 of 1995 book)

A report from the National Center for Clinical Infant Programs makes the point that school success is not predicted by a child's fund of facts or a precocious ability to read so much as by emotional and social measures: being self-assured and interested; knowing what kind of behavior is expected and how to rein in the impulse to misbehave; being able to wait, to follow directions, and to turn to teachers for help; and expressing needs while getting along with other children. Almost all students who do poorly in school... lack one or more of these elements of emotional intelligence.

To me, it seems Goleman has come very close to saying that an emotionally intelligent person is one who is an obedient, compliant, unquestioning conformist -- a perfect servant of the state (or corporation).

In another place he says that EI includes social skills like "teamwork, persuasion, leadership, and managing relationships." In the same article he says it is "what we used to call maturity" (http://harvard-magazine.com/issues/so98/path.html)

Here are a few specific reasons why there are serious problems with Goleman's casual definitions:

First, motivation, persistence, impulse control, ability to delay gratification, and the ability to "hope" have never been shown to be part of emotional intelligence with any scientific EI test.

Second, without much effort we can think of common sense reasons why Goleman has misled us in each area.

For example:

Motivation - Picture a fraternity brother who is considering doing something dangerous, even foolhardy. Say he has been challenged to drink 10 bottles of beer in 2 minutes, or to smash a bottle against his head. He might be able to motivate himself to do it, but would this be a sign of emotional intelligence? (For more of my thoughts on the problems with calling motivation a part of emotional intelligence, see my "motivation" page.)

To persist in the face of frustration- Consider a man who is trying to have sex with a woman and is getting more physically aggressive. She has repeatedly told him no. He grows more and more frustrated with her rejection. Would it be emotionally intelligent to persist?

Impulse control - Let's say on the way to visit someone in marketing to deliver a proposal you happen to step into an elevator with the owner of a business. You have the "impulse" to introduce yourself. Would it be emotionally intelligent to stand in silence while the owner gets out on the next floor? Or say you have the impulse to jump up in the water to try to save someone who is drowning. Would it be emotionally intelligent to sit, watch and think about the situation for a minute or two?

Delayed gratification - Under construction....

Here is my old example - I am trying to come up with a better one. One that is less offensive! Please write me if you have a suggestion! Steve

Picture an old, unhappy martyr-like woman who never will accept any favors, help. thanks or compliments. Imagine she is the kind of woman who subtly lays guilt trips on everyone else and by her behavior makes everyone feel uncomfortable and miserable, including herself. She says she is making sacrifices now so she will get her reward in "heaven." She eventually gets cancer, partly from her from her inability to experience joy, happiness and closeness. She carries her behavior and beliefs with her to her grave. Is this what we would call emotionally intelligent?

Hope - Is it more emotionally intelligent to sit and "hope" (or pray) that things will get better? Or to take some constructive action to improve things?

Conscientiousness - On page 479 of their chapter in the Bar-On Handbook, Matthews and Zeidner report that conscientiousness and creativity tend to be negatively correlated. This makes sense of course, but I was pleased to see the research they present. Thus, if we were to say that conscientiousness is a good thing, and that is a factor in emotional intelligence, we would be saying that the more conscientious a person is, the higher his EI. And, according to Goleman, the more "successful" he is. This may indeed be true if you work in a job where following procedures is of high importance - I think of jobs such as in a post office, bank or insurance company. But if you work for an ad agency, or work for yourself, (something which Goleman seems to never address) you might want to be less conscientious and more creative. (For the benefits of emotional creativity, read an excellent chapter in the Bar-On book by William Averill. Here are a few notes from that chapter.)

Several of these have more to do with behavior than with a mental ability. Goleman seems preoccupied, in fact, with behavior. He clearly wants to use his definition of emotional intelligence to promote his personal beliefs about how we "should" behave. Keep in mind that for several years at least, Goleman has been living and working in New York City. If you have ever been to New York City you will know why Goleman takes a Freudian view of human nature. In other words, he believes that we are not much more than aggressive, violent animals who will destroy ourselves if we are not controlled. Keep in mind also that he was raised in the United States, easily one of the most violent and out of control countries in the world, especially among the countries which are materially wealthy by world standards. This helps explain why he believes emotions should be controlled.

Goleman rarely talks of using emotions in a positive way. He doesn't talk about their value to make needed changes in our lives and in the world. Thus, he underestimates the value of our negative feelings. He doesn't even seem to understand why people even have negative feelings or to understand that humans have natural emotional needs or that "success" and being a "star performer" do not necessarily meet our emotional needs.

Goleman also fails to mention that it takes intelligence to know when to act on impulses, when to delay gratification, when to persist in the face of frustration and when not to. It is not as simple as just saying it is emotionally intelligent to behave as Goleman would like us to.

A primary value of intelligence is to aid in making decisions -- decisions which will lead to long term health, happiness and survival. In fact, one might define intelligence as the ability to make such decisions. This is precisely why such decisions are called intelligent decisions. When we are considering our choices we might feel more pessimistic about one of the choices. This is important data to take into consideration. We can analyze why we feel pessimistic and use our rational intelligence to make an informed decision. Sometimes it is smart to allow our pessimistic feelings to guide us away from something. Sometimes it is smart to act on an impulse. Sometimes it is smart to act rather than sit around hoping things will get better.

Goleman says that optimism is a sign of emotional intelligence. But like hope and delayed gratification, one can have too much of a good thing. In other words a person can easily be too optimistic. Think of a father who insists his son will be okay if he plays sports with an injury. The son and the mother are both afraid. The father says optimistically, "He'll be fine. Don't worry." So the son plays and is badly hurt. Or think of someone who puts too much money in a stock feeling optimistic that it will double in value. Instead, the company goes bankrupt.

Robert McCrea writes about the difference between the mental abilities of the Mayer et al model of EI as opposed to personality traits:

The distinction between these abilities and personality traits is sometimes subtle, but it can be drawn. For example, one can be optimistic simply because one has a cheerful disposition (which requires no intelligence of any kind); or one may understand that one can create an optimistic assessment by deliberately calling to mind the chances of success or by summoning social support from others. This process of manipulating one's own emotional state requires a certain degree of psychological mindedness that Mayer and his colleagues deem a form of intelligence. (Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, p. 276)

Also, when we have a true intelligence, it seems clear to me that you can't have "too much" of it. I have never heard of anyone being "too smart." I have heard some people say that others are "too emotionally sensitive," but I disagree with their assessment. I believe that sensitivity is an aspect of emotional intelligence, and that it is only a question of what to do with the increased information that heightened sensitivity gives us.

With regard to how Goleman calls optimism a part of EI, Mayer et al say:

... does it make sense to label a trait such as optimism an "intelligence" because it predicts success (like intelligence)? We wonder whether this makes any more sense than labeling sleepiness an "alcoholic beverage" because, like alcohol, it leads to traffic accidents. Models of Emotional Intelligence, p. 399)

Goleman also calls "flow" a part of emotional intelligence. John Mayer says this is better called an "altered state of consciousness". (Goleman wrote about "flow" and altered states of consciousness in his past writing.)

Goleman likes to include social skills, which he defines in various broad ways, as part of emotional intelligence. Here is one example:

Social Skills: Capacity for acting in such a way that one is able to get desired results from others and reach personal goals. (from eihaygroup.com/resources)

With this definition, it seems anyone who is able to get a gun and rob a bank (i.e. gets the desired result from others and reaches their personal goal ) could qualify as having social skills and emotional intelligence.

Here is another example of how someone has taken Goleman's corporate definition of EI and has expanded it even further to try to capitalize on it. This person claims that he has a test which measures these "13 key areas of emotional intelligence"

Emotional Energy, Stress, Optimism, Self-Esteem, Commitment to Work, Attention to Detail, Desire for Change, Courage, Self-Direction, Assertiveness, Tolerance, Consideration for Others, & Sociability

Source: http://www.eqhelp.com/selfimp2.htm

3. Many of the components of Goleman's original definition of EI and his new corporate definition have already been researched. These include the ability to delay gratification, "flow," optimism, resilience, and empathy. I won't list all the components of his corporate definition because there are simply too many of them. Goleman is trying to pull all of these together in one heading. Seymour Epstein criticizes Goleman sharply for this in this statement.

In their article Emotional Intelligence as Zeitgeist, as Personality, and as a Mental Ability, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso give specific examples of how some of the variables which Goleman claims to be correlated with EI actually are not significantly correlated at all. They support their assertion with several personality research studies. From my review of Mayer et al's work, the only components of Goleman's version of emotional intelligence which actually show a significant positive correlation with the MEIS and MSCIET scores are empathy and the ability to regulate emotions.

Emotional Intelligence as Zeitgeist, as Personality, and as a Mental Ability

4. Throughout his 1995 book Goleman states or implies that anyone can raise their emotional intelligence. He has continued to make this claim in his articles and interviews. Highly respected psychologist Rob

ert McCrae, among others, has spoken out against Goleman's claim that EI is easily learned. In his chapter in the Bar-on Handbook of Emotional Intelligence McCrae first explains how Goleman's mixed model of EI is largely based on unrelated personality factors (see pages 265-266). Then McCrae writes:

... we know a good deal about the origins and development of personality traits. Traits from all five factors [of the "Big Five" personality traits] are strongly influenced by genes and are extraordinarily persistent in adulthood. This is likely to be unwelcome news to proponents of emotional intelligence, who have sometimes contrasted a supposed malleability of emotional intelligence with the relative fixity of traditional IQ. Goleman, for example, was quoted as saying that "people can change from being pessimists to optimists in a matter of weeks." [My emphasis. For citations see page 266.]

On page 34 of his 1995 book Goleman says this of emotional intelligence: "No one can say yet exactly how much of the variability from person to person in life's course it accounts for. But what data exist suggest it can be as powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ. And while there are those who argue that IQ cannot be changed much by experience or education, I will show in Part Five that the crucial emotional competencies can indeed be learned and improved upon by children -- if we bother to teach them." [my emphasis]

By the way, I noticed Goleman chose his words very carefully. He spoke of the "variability from person to person in life's course" rather than a person's success in life as seems to do when he is promoting the benefits of EI.

But my main point is that here Goleman says we can teach what he calls "crucial emotional competencies". To me, this is similar to saying we can teach all children basic math competencies, such as addition and subtraction. Any math teacher knows, though, that some kids have a progressively harder time when they get to multiplication, then division, then percentages and fractions. Still we can teach most people the concept of "half-off sales" and "40% off". Does this mean that we are teaching them mathematical intelligence though? And even if we can teach virtually all children that 2+2 = 4, does that mean that all children are created equal in their mathematical intelligence potential, and that any difference in their test scores, proficiency or achievement is due to a failure of the teacher and the environment?

I have never seen Goleman even suggest that some people are simply innately more emotionally intelligent than others, something which I believe most day care teachers would easily recognize. This omission seems to be a reflection of Goleman's desire to reject what we know about IQ, and more specifically of his personal political agenda to discredit the research presented in The Bell Curve. From several things Goleman has written I sense that he feels some personal resentment towards someone or some group regarding the issues of IQ and equality. In the US, in particular, these are both highly sensitive issues which trigger many strong feelings. Goleman is smart enough to attempt to mask his feelings behind his ostensibly objective writing and reporting, but they still can be read between the lines. Of course, me, I would never do that!

On this point, it is interesting to note that the way Goleman has defined EI as basically a set of personality traits and behaviors which can be taught, rather than as anything which is innate to us, he precludes the possibility that there can be any inherent inequality when it comes to emotional intelligence. In other words, by the way he has defined it, his version of emotional intelligence is indeed an answer to the Bell Curve.

For an editorial which criticizes the idea of EI being an equalizer see The New Leninism

5. How he is trying to take all the credit for himself

Goleman did not even mention the work of Salovey and Mayer until page 47 of his 1995 book. And in that book he only cited Salovey in the index three times, just once more than he cited Woody Allen, and twice more than he cited his old friend Richard Alpert, who now calls himself Ram Dass.

I am not the only one who has noticed Goleman's failure to give credit. For example, in his review of Working with Emotional Intelligence, Robert Sternberg says:

Goleman was not generous with credit to intellectual antecedents in his earlier book on emotional intelligence. This book helps to remedy the situation, but in a fairly minor way. He now includes a 11/2 page appendix that cites the contributions of Howard Gardner and of Peter Salovey and John Mayer, although some, including me, still are likely to believe that Goleman is less than highly generous with credit.

Also, when I did a search of the Hay Group site, (ei.haygroup.com), the people who Goleman merged his consulting practice with and who Goleman is still partners with, I found no references whatsoever to the work of Mayer, Salovey and Caruso. (And of course they don't have the eqi.org site listed on their links, even though they have several sites with far less information on EI linked.)

6. Misrepresenting his work as "scientific"

In her 1999 article Annie Paul puts it this way:

... while Goleman drew on the prestige of academia, he failed to adhere to its scrupulousness. The original theory only has a nodding acquaintance with the version presented in Goleman's book.

She adds:

...by focusing on personality traits rather than specific interactions between emotions and intelligence, Goleman undermines the book's claims to scientific accuracy.

and in referring to her interview of Jack Mayer on Goleman's unfounded claims she writes:

"The claims made for emotional intelligence were unrelated to anything we have ever claimed," Mayer states flatly. In particular, the assertion that emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ in predicting success "is nothing that you will ever find in anything we wrote." Goleman arrived at that conclusion himself -- and the methods he used to get there are distinctly unscientific.

(http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/06/28/emotional/)

For a detailed explanation of how Goleman has misrepresented the science on EI, request the reprints of Models of Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence as Zeitgeist, as Personality, and as a Mental Ability and Selecting a Measure of Emotional Intelligence: The Case for Ability Scale (see http://eqi.org/mayer.htm for reprint info)

7. Contradiction between his personal beliefs about emotion and the academic theory on EI

Close reading of the 1995 book seems to indicate that Goleman does not place a high value on the inherent value of our feelings. Certainly it seems clear to me that he places far less value on them than do the leading academic researchers in the field. Throughout the book an underlying theme is that emotions need to be restrained, tempered, controlled, managed and regulated. He seems to agree with the quote "Rule your emotions, lest they rule you." For instance, Goleman titled one chapter "Passion's Slaves." Tellingly, (I use that word mockingly, just in case you missed it. If you read the section on how DG manipulates his readers, you will understand.) I have never seen him refer to the idea that our emotions draw attention to what is important to think about, one of the central themes in the work of Mayer, Salovey and Caruso.

Goleman actually seems to be afraid of emotion and emotional expression. Later I will talk more about this, but I suspect that you will notice it if you go back and look at the book again. He even seems judgmental at times about feelings, telling us when it is "appropriate" and when it is "inappropriate" to display emotions.

Here is an example from an article written about EI:

"It's just management by niceness" is one criticism, with the implication that the approach lacks weight. Goleman disagrees, pointing out that EQ has nothing to do with 'letting it all hang out' and everything to do with controlling emotions so that they are used appropriately. (From http://www.teammanagementsystems.com/tms12-1s.html)

---

Side commentary: I have noticed that people who use the word "appropriate" usually seem to believe they know what is "appropriate" for others. I have also noticed that such people tend to be judgmental, self-righteous, and rigid in their thinking. Consider the child who is told, "Your behavior is not appropriate." The child doesn't understand what is wrong, though, since this is no explanation at all. It is simply a more refined way of saying "Because I said so."

Dan's use of the word "appropriate" may be a reflection of his own fundamental insecurity. I say this because I have also noticed that insecure individuals tend to be the most uncomfortable with any signs of emotion, especially strong negative emotion. When they feel uncomfortable, they are likely to tell you that your behavior is inappropriate. They are not aware enough and emotionally literate enough to express their own feelings, in particular their fears. Or, perhaps they are afraid their own feelings do not hold sufficient authority in their own right, so they make a general, categorical statement, as if it were universally given. This is about as helpful as telling someone something is wrong because it says so in the the Bible (or the Koran, Book of Dao, Book of Morman, etc). It is what some would call a cop out -- a failure to take personal responsibility for their decisions, beliefs, and feelings.

It reminds me of a time when I asked someone at a Montessori School how she felt about me putting my feet on the table so I could position my laptop computer legs and type. She said, "It doesn't matter how I feel! It simply is not appropriate at a Montessori School!" (This is not a reflection of the Montessori principles, by the way. This particular school did not live out the ideals of Maria Montessori.)

In short, to say something is "inappropriate" is not science. I can understand what Goleman is doing, and I think I have an idea why he is doing it, but I do not excuse him for mixing science with his personal experience of life.

8. His claims about his ECI-360 test

Here is what Goleman says about his test:

The ECI is the only instrument that incorporates the full depth of my research and that of my colleagues. Other instruments use the words "Emotional Intelligence" but the ECI is the genuine article." (trgmcber.haygroup.com/emotional-intelligence/eiacc.htm)

I really had to stop myself from laughing so I could write this down when I came across this! If you can find anyone outside of Goleman's, shall I say, "pawns", at the EI Consortium and the Hay Group who says that the ECI is a valid test of emotional intelligence, please let me know! (By the way, the Hay Group also goes beyond misleading to actually blatantly lying on their website (trgmcber.haygroup.com/emotional-intelligence/eiacc.htm) which promotes the ECI. If you read what they say in the in the Frequently Asked Questions section about the Mayer Salovey Caruso test, which they wrongly call the Salovey Mayer test, you may spot what I am talking about.)

Now, seriously, if you want to find out why his test is not a measure of EI, just pick up a copy of the Bar-On Handbook and read

Chapters 7 (pp. 146-147)
Chapter 12 (pp. 263-268)
Chapter 15 - the most complete review of the ECI-360
9. Original Intention of his Book

Someone once told me that Goleman was not originally intending to write a book about emotional intelligence. I believe it was Reuven Bar-On, but it might have been David Caruso. Anyhow, I was told the book originally was to be titled "Emotional Literacy," and that only later did he change the title to "Emotional Intelligence."

If you read the book closely, you will see that Goleman talks a lot about emotional literacy. And as I mentioned in point 2, Goleman interchanges the terms "emotional literacy" and "emotional intelligence." It seems like he went back into the book and added the term "emotional intelligence" here and there once he and his book publishers decided to call the book "Emotional Intelligence."

Also, if you read the acknowledgements at the back of Goleman's book, you will see that the first person he thanks is Eileen Rockefeller Growald, the President of the Institute for the Advancement of Health. He thanks her for being the first person who told him about the term "emotional literacy". Why would he first thank someone for telling him about the term "emotional literacy" if his book was intended to be about emotional intelligence? Here is the quote:

I first heard the phrase "emotional literacy" from Eileen Rockefeller Growald, then the founder and president of the institute for the Advancement of Health. It was this casual conversation that that piqued my interest and framed the investigations that finally became this book.

Then he thanks the Fetzer Institute for giving him funding so he could further "explore" the term emotional intelligence without having to do so much work for the New York Times. Here is what he says

"Support from the Fetzer Institute has allowed me the luxury of time to explore more fully what "emotional literacy" might mean..."



and I am grateful for the crucial early encouragement of Rob Lehman, president of the institute , and an ongoing collaboration with David Sluyter, program director there. It was Rob Lehman who, early on in my explorations, urged me to write a book emotional literacy.
(I don't know, by the way, if he was actually an employee of the New York Times or if he just wrote articles for them as a free lance writer.) We don't know exactly when Goleman decided to further "explore" the idea of emotional intelligence. Was it after one year of working on a book about emotional literacy? After two years? Was it when he was almost done writing? We just don't know, and it is unlikely we would ever get the truth from Goleman.

We also don't even know if the grant that Goleman got from the Fetzer Institute actually even mentioned the term "emotional intelligence." My guess is that it didn't. Or it could be that Goleman got two grants. Maybe someday I will write the Institute and see if they will tell me what really happened.

But here is something else which suggests that Goleman was only planning to write about emotional literacy. The next thing Goleman says in his acknowledgements is that Rob Lehman, the President of Fetzer Institute, inspired him to write a book about emotional literacy. (See related note on the title of the book)



Another thing which implies that Goleman wasn't really very interested in the idea of emotional intelligence when he was writing his 1995 book is the fact that in that book he talks much more about than the work of Howard Gardner than he does about the work of Salovey and Mayer. See this note on the comparision between the number of references to the work of each.



How Goleman manipulates his readers, and other commentary on him

As of June 2001 I am just collecting some thoughts on this topic. Each time I re-read sections from Goleman's 1995 book I notice more of evidence of how he does this. Here are a few notes:

As I read Goleman, it seems he is trying to play into our fears. In the opening pages of his book, he writes about (1) a child who went on a "rampage," (2) a teen shooting, (3) statistics on parents who murder their own children, and (4) and a German who set fire to and killed five Turkish women and children while they slept. (p. x)
A few pages later, p.13, he opens the chapter with the story of a man who murdered two women in their twenties and how he "slashed and stabbed them over and over with a kitchen knife." This reminded me of the murder of Nicole Simpson. Feeling skeptical, I wondered why Goleman failed to add that story into his book. I went back to check the dates, thinking perhaps the murder was after the book came out. But no, the murder was in 1994. Now I remember that the first jury found OJ Simpson not guilty. So while most of the world probably disagrees with this verdict, and I certainly disagree with it, Goleman could simply say that is why he left it out. Maybe so, maybe not.

Another example: Starts out chapter 15 with a story on a school killing in America. p 231

He uses emotionally laden words and stories. Sometimes these are easy to spot, sometimes they are more subtle. Take the word "telling," which is one of Goleman's oft-used words. He will say something is a "telling sign" when it represents something fear-evoking. He could use a more neutral word such as "predicts." But he seems to like to use more drama. For more examples of drama, see my notes on chapter 15
He repeatedly use the word "heart" when he wants to touch us on an emotional level to make more an impression on us. At one point he talks about "spirituality" and "soul." This is not science. It is emotional manipulation. At some places he sounds a little like new age guru Deepak Chopra, who is an expert at mixing science and make-believe, and who plays to the vulnerabilities and unmet emotional needs of his audience. This reminds me of Goleman's ten years or so at Psychology Today. If you have not seen it, pick up a copy and take a look and you will see many examples of what I am talking about. Suspiciously, Goleman seems to have stopped telling people he worked at Psychology Today.
He seems himself to be afraid of emotional expression. Over and over he talks about the dangers of letting our emotions take over, of emotional hijacks, of being slaves to our passion. Rarely though does he write about the positive value of our feelings, or of strong feelings in particular. He seems to take a rather Freudian view of human nature in this respect, urging that we all exercise temperance, regulation, restraint and control. The more I read the more I think control is a very big issue to him and that he may be what some would describe as a "control freak." I am curious to talk to some people who worked with him at Psychology Today to ask about what he is really like. In that job he was a Senior Editor, so he had a certain amount of power. I wonder how he used it. I suspect that he sometimes completely lost control of himself, which may be one reason why he writes so much about the need for control. But I am just speculating. Still, I am curious, so I may do a little more research.
He wants to create the impression he is presenting objective, balanced, scientific data, but he actually weights it to create the effect he desires. Goleman is torn between presenting science and presenting his own view of emotions and the way he thinks society should be. This probably contributes to what I see as his lack of integrity, his lack of wholeness. Consider this example: On page 56 Goleman writes: "The goal is balance, not suppression: every feeling has its value and significance." But then he spends the majority of the chapter talking about the dangers of letting our emotions take control over us. For example, he often refers to times when our emotions are "out of control, too extreme and persistent."




Critical Review of Goleman's 1998 book, Working with emotional intelligence



Summary

For me, there was much less new material in this book than in Goleman's first book on EI, and it is written more for the mass market. It reads like a cross between an introductory text on Human Resource Management and a Tom Peters book. One big problem I have with the book is that it stretched the concept of EI into areas which were never included by the researchers Mayer and Salovey.

Also, Goleman seems to promote the belief that success is money and money is success. I quickly grew tired of all the references to "star performers," for example. I am afraid salespeople will become even more "fake" and relentless, and that managers who have a tendency to emotionally manipulate their employees will misuse this book. Goleman does not seem to sincerely endorse respect for the individual's feelings or to suggest that managers consider their own feelings about the products they are making and the services they are offering. I am afraid Daniel Goleman has gotten swept away with his fame, status and pursuit of his own financial success, and has lost sight of what is truly important to the human species.

Like all tools, the use of his book and his research will depend on the motives of the person using it.

More detailed comments.....

As someone who has worked in business, has had my own business, and has studied organizational behavior in both undergraduate and graduate school, when I read this book in 1998 I felt offended by Goleman trying to tell me that what he was writing about was something new. Even before I was aware that Jack Mayer and his research colleagues strongly disagreed with his use of the term emotional intelligence, I sensed something was wrong.

Now as I read more of Mayer, Salovey's and Caruso's work, and I see more of the research (for example that which compares the results of Goleman's "Emotional Competence Inventory", which he calls a measure of emotional intelligence, to other measures of personality such as the FIRO B test and the California Personality Inventory), I feel even more mislead by Goleman. Because Goleman has so firmly entrenched himself and his definition of EI in the business community, I feel a sense of obligation to try to stem the tide of his influence. I am afraid he is doing significant damage to the legitimate concept of emotional intelligence.

Below are a few of my more specific criticisms of his 1998 book on what he calls emotional intelligence. (I have more specific page number references if you are interested.)

----

He presents obvious, well-known facts as if they were important new insights, then he offers a research study citation to support it. For example, he speaks of "landmark" studies which show that (1) People with self-confidence are more successful. (2) People with initiative take more risks (3) Groups perform better if the group members get along.

He tries to mislead us into believing he is an expert in business-when in fact, his background is primarily academia and story writing.

He seems overly critical of trainers, training programs, consultants, psychologists, self-help books, business managers, business in general and anyone who is trying to do work under the name of EI. It seems he wants to be the sole prophet of Emotional Intelligence and he wants all consulting work to go to his (then) newly established consulting business.

Terms are interchanged and sometimes confused: Empathy/sympathy. Empathy/sensitivity. Empathy distress/sympathy. Cowardice/brilliance. Optimism/hope. Understanding/ involvement; Initiative/"sheer hard work."

Some of the terms used seemed unnecessary or contrived: "Pseudoempathy," "Empathy avoidance," "Empathy Distress"

Name dropping. Goleman steadily mentions names of the big companies he has consulted for, all the CEO's he has spoken with, etc. And he mentions his friends, business partners and former professors at Harvard a few too many times.

"I heard Alex Broer, vice chancellor of Cambridge University and a former director of research at IBM, tell a London briefing on emotional intelligence for British Telecom..." p 191

He labels people

Mediocre, nerds p 44
techies p 45
trouble maker p 93
dreamer p 94
pessimist p 126
oafish arrogant brash p 191

Uses too much drama:

"There is now a palpable bleakness about the new landscape of work." p 10

Uses words emotionally loaded with fear and urgency

Says EI is "crucial" and "essential to our success" p. 3,4
"People desperately felt the need for connection, for empathy, for open communication." p 9
"Another reality makes EI even more crucial"..." p 9
EI made the "crucial" difference between "mediocre and best leaders" p 33
"these turbulent times" p 99

His book is written too much like a series of newspaper articles for a mass-market newspaper like USA Today. In other words, his sections are short, have "cute" titles (some even with religious associations) and are significantly watered down in comparison with his first book.

Some sample section titles:

The Value of Magic p 34
Too much college, too little kindergarten p 42
The just-say-no neurons p 77
Change is the constant p 96
Angel's Advocates and Voices of Doom p 102
The Cardinal Sin p 307

He offers needless explanations and definitions. He tells us Lockheed is an "aerospace company" and that Lee Iacocca "turned Chrysler around." And he felt the need to define "micromanagement" for us.

He neglects the most important aspect of EI-- feelings. Like B.F. Skinner, Daniel seems to believe that what matters is behavior, and that feelings are just a means to an end. Goleman also seems to believe that feelings are messy and scary and are better left at home, unless they can be directly associated with "star performance."

Note: I have also started a page on Goleman to gather my notes from his books, copies of his articles, my critical reviews, etc.