The problem with Emotional Intelligence assessments: When measurement misses the mark
In the world of emotional intelligence (EI), measurement tools have become a cornerstone of understanding ourselves and others. These tools promise to illuminate the depths of our emotional awareness, communication, and connection, offering a pathway to personal and professional growth. But while the intentions behind these tools are noble, their execution often leaves much to be desired. Many EI measures emphasize arbitrary benchmarks that inadvertently harm the very people they aim to help.
Ignoring strengths to highlight weaknesses
One of the most troubling tendencies of EI measures is their fixation on deficits. By design, many tools focus on what’s “wrong” with individuals, drawing attention to low scores while sidelining strengths. This approach assumes that development should prioritize areas where we score poorly, often ignoring the possibility that leveraging strengths can be just as, if not more, effective in addressing challenges. This deficit-focused mindset can leave people feeling inadequate, as though their natural talents don’t matter unless they compensate for perceived weaknesses.
Misinterpreting low and high scores
The assumption that low scores are inherently bad and high scores are incomplete is another pervasive flaw. Emotional intelligence is nuanced, and its competencies are neither universally “good” nor “bad.” For instance, being highly empathetic can be a strength in some contexts but overwhelming in others. Similarly, a lower score in emotional expressiveness doesn’t necessarily signify a problem—it might reflect a person’s preference for introspection or their cultural norms. Reducing complex human traits to a linear scale of “low is bad, high is good” oversimplifies what it means to be emotionally intelligent.
Benchmarks that make people feel worse
Arbitrary benchmarks, often derived from norms, risk making people feel inadequate for not meeting an externally defined standard. Instead of empowering individuals, these benchmarks can leave them questioning their worth. If someone scores below the norm on an EI competency, they might internalize the idea that they’re “not good enough,” even if their emotional profile is perfectly suited to their unique life circumstances. The emphasis on meeting or exceeding a generalized standard can create unnecessary pressure, leading to frustration rather than growth.
Turning scores into weapons
Another unintended consequence of EI measurement is the tendency to use small score differences as a basis for comparison. When we hinge our self-worth on numbers, even minute differences can become a source of pride—or shame. This mindset fosters a competitive environment where people use scores to bolster their egos at others’ expense, undermining the collaborative and growth-oriented spirit that EI should inspire.
Ignoring context
One of the most overlooked issues in EI measurement is the lack of attention to context. The value of emotional intelligence competencies isn’t static; it changes depending on the situation. For instance, a high level of emotional expressiveness might be a great asset when leading a team through a crisis, helping to inspire and motivate. But in a setting that requires confidentiality or restraint, like a legal negotiation, the same competency could be a liability.
Similarly, lower scores on empathy might be problematic in a caregiving role but could be advantageous in high-stakes decision-making where emotional detachment is key. When EI tools fail to account for context, they risk misinterpreting competencies, labeling them as strengths or weaknesses without considering their situational relevance. Effective measurement needs to move beyond static scoring and reflect the dynamic interplay between individual traits and the environments in which they operate.
A better way forward
To truly benefit from EI measures, we need tools that respect individual strengths and context. Self-awareness should be about understanding our unique emotional profiles—not about striving to meet arbitrary standards. By reframing low and high scores as descriptive rather than prescriptive, and by integrating context into the evaluation process, we can shift the focus from inadequacy to possibility.
Ultimately, the goal of any EI measure should be to help people feel seen, understood, and empowered—not diminished. Emotional intelligence isn’t about being “better” than someone else; it’s about being better attuned to who we are and how we connect with the world. Let’s make room for a more compassionate and inclusive approach to measurement—one that celebrates our humanity in all its complexity.
