Getting the Measure of Emotion - and the Cautionary Tale of Emotional Intelligence

Abstract

This article examines critically the recent growth of emotion measurement in organizational behaviour. The epistemological and phenomenological consequences of psychometrically ‘boxing’ emotion are, it is argued, problematic and restrictive. This may be seen in the power and professional prestige it affords to the measurers and in the consequences to those classified by measurement. This is particularly so when an emotion is presented as key to personal or organizational success. Emotional intelligence is a strong illustration of these issues, where ‘experts’ ascribe positive value to people with high emotional intelligence quotients (EQ), and low EQs are regarded as suitable cases for training. How can emotion be ‘known’, other than through measurement and numbers? The article suggests some different approaches towards researching an important, but enigmatic, concept.

‘It’s good to be angry’: Enacting anger in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness

“…Brief and Weiss (2002) concur, arguing that perceptions of employees in their work environment are not, of necessity, synonymous with more objective evaluations of work-related incidents. In line with several other scholars (Fineman, 2004), we deem a qualitative approach to data collection most suitable for our purpose (see also Bresnen, 1995). Therefore, a qualitative study that examines how CPMs enact anger in the pursuit of goals has the capacity to contribute significant evidence to our understanding of perceived leader effectiveness.…”

Bridging the contradictions of social constructionism and psychoanalysis in a study of workplace emotions in India

“…Emotion rules may be followed, not to meet the conscious expectations of an organizational other, but rather to satisfy one's own unconscious desires or fantasies. In spite of these differences, psychoanalytic and social constructionist approaches to workplace emotions share many similarities (Gough 2004;Clarke 2003;Frosh 2001Frosh , 2003 including an acknowledgment of emotion as a core motivational force, a recognition that emotion and cognition interpenetrate in many ways, and an engagement with emotion as a starting point for interpreting social and organizational dynamics (Fineman, 2000(Fineman, , 2004Gabriel and Griffiths, 2002). Both perspectives acknowledge the importance of culture in shaping emotions, although a psychoanalytic one places greater emphasis on the controlling, consoling, and narcissistic aspects of culture, such as its function of providing an individual sense of self-importance and belonging, while a social constructionist approach places greater emphasis on culture's meaning-making functions.…”

Bringing emotion to work

“…With its purported natural and social scientific underpinnings, EI makes claims to a scientific legitimacy and authority which may be harder to resist, harder to dismiss as mere 'managerial rhetoric' (Hughes 2003;Fineman 2004). …”

“…(notable exceptions are Fineman 2000Fineman , 2004Cullinane & Pye 2001;Hughes 2003). The subject has largely been discussed within the psychological literature, where debates have centred on the concept's empirical validity (see, for example, Sternberg and Kaufman 1998;Davies et al 1998;Schutte et al 1998;Abraham 1999;Huy 1999); and over the measurement of EI or 'EQ' (Davies et al 1998;Mayer et al 1999;Ciarrochi et al 2000;Ashkanasy et al 2002).…”