In this zone, we critically evaluate the dark side of emotional intelligence and explore its impact on organisational “behaviour in the workplace Over the past two decades, emotional intelligence (EI) has become a widely contested, debated and emotive–topic in the fields of management and psychology.51 Its– original espousal by Salovey and Mayer52– and subsequent development by Goleman53 and Goleman and Boyatzis,54 has catalysed a growing industry for practitioners and academics with, it could be argued, two key aims in mind. First, to popularise EI as a management tool and technique to develop, among other things, the pursuit of more effective leadership, the optimisation of performance and catalyse changes in individual and organisational behaviour.55 Second, to empiricise and address the conceptual, theoretical and measurement paradoxes surrounding EI and its perceived and espoused relationship with established personality factors.55,56,57 While EI has received glowing references from both practitioners and academics, in terms of how the construct can enable us to become more in tune with, and aware of, our own and others’ emotions,51, 57 Bariso58 argues that the concept can no longer be viewed as ‘inherently virtuous’. In the past, proponents of EI (e.g.
leaders, educators and policy makers), have, rather enthusiastically, touted it as a panacea for all ills, to solve a raft of issues ranging from personal problems (e.g. bullying) and organisational difficulties such as poor employee engagement, in the hope that it will foster a more caring and nurturing workplace.57 However, Bariso and Grant57 caveat that EI has both a ‘light’ and ‘dark’ side and individuals can therefore use it in ethical and unethical ways to promote their own ends.
Metaphorically, Bariso describes EI as power, inferring its potential capacity to corrupt. On this note, Bariso and Grant suggest that history is riddled with a litany of examples of high profile leaders who have demonstrated elevated levels of EI and achieved national and international notoriety for their unique ability to manipulate others through, for example, using a knowledge of people’s emotions to influence their behaviour. Bariso argues that consciously or subconsciously, we are all culpable of exercising this behaviour, a classic of example of which is being nice to someone who has something that we want or can do something for us, such as helping to advance our careers. Grant and Kilduff, Chiaburu and Menges59 concur and highlight new evidence, which suggests that when individuals sharpen their emotional skills they become more adept at manipulating and motivating others to act in ways that may be contrary to their own beliefs, value systems and best interests.
Bariso questions whether this behaviour is unethical and concludes ‘in the end, it depends.–.–.–EI can be an especially dangerous tool in the wrong hands.’
Kilduff et al. adds ‘the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviours evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in offices and corridors where power and influence are traded’
(p.–147). One could argue that this is a demonstration of the Jungian shadow at play and symptomatic of the dark behaviours that can be injurious to both individuals and organisations.60, 61 (See Chapter– 0:
Critical Thinking Zone: Reflections on the Shadow Side of Organisations).
Arguably, a key tenet of EI is measurement of one’s emotional quotient (EQ) using self-testing and self-perception tests. Tobak62 caveats that engagement with these tests can lead to ‘gaming’ whereby respondents manipulate their answers to achieve high EQ scores. He argues that although the test questions are phrased in a number of different ways to try and improve their accuracy, the overall results can be distorted by individuals who display certain personality traits and are thus skilled at controlling and understanding their emotions. Tobak noted ‘the more delusional, narcissistic and sociopathic you are, the easier it is to game the test.’ Respondents are therefore more likely to appear they are ‘as self-aware and empathetic as a Zen Master or Buddhist Monk.’ Tobak and Antonakis63 contend that testing for EQ is not scientific and, in many instances, may not have been subject to rigorous research. They therefore conclude that such tests are fundamentally flawed and their results are meaningless, leaving more opportunities for dark behaviours to be manifested and perpetuated by those who seek to wield power and influence over others.
To conclude, although EI can enable us to become more emotionally aware of our own and other’s emotions, Grant and Tobak caveat that like the organisational shadow, the dark side of EI is pervasive and can be used as a weapon to manipulate people and exercise a modicum of control over their emotions.
This clearly has implications for organisational behaviour in the workplace. One could argue that the heart of EI is behavioural change; changing how we think, feel, act and perceive ourselves and others around us, including the organisation at large. It could be further argued that the dark behaviours that emanate from the somewhat Machiavellian exploitation of EI, obscures the original, well-meaning tenets and objectives of the concept. However, given that our emotions and behaviours are, like the Jungian shadow, mainly subjective, subconscious and buried deep within us, it is no surprise that the dark side of EI is interplayed on the organisation’s metaphorical stage.
Tobak contends that the change in individual and organisational behaviour espoused by EI is somewhat utopian and cannot be achieved by taking a test, attending a seminar or reading a book. He notes ‘if that were the case – if it really were that simple – people would not need years of therapy, hard work and discipline to change their behaviour.’ Tobak maintains his scepticism and concludes ‘study emotional intelligence all you want, it won’t change a thing.

1.Bariso argues that EI can no longer be viewed as

‘inherently virtuous.’ With reference to theory and practice, critically discuss his viewpoint.

2.The dark side of EI can be likened to the Jungian shadow. Compare and contrast the two concepts and identify the implications for organisational behaviour in the workplace.

3.Bariso argues that we are all culpable of consciously and subconsciously using a knowledge of people’s emotions to influence their behaviour. To what extent do you agree with his views?