Merve Emre on emotional intelligence as corporate control (Re-release)
53:44 Share

To make switching to the new Boost Mobile risk-free, we're offering a 30-day money-back guarantee. So, why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T-Mobile? Because you have nothing to lose. Boost Mobile is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee. No, I asked why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T-Mobile. Oh. Wouldn't. Uh...

Because you love wasting money as a way to punish yourself because your mother never showed you enough love as a child? Whoa, easy there. Yeah.

If you wear glasses, you know how hard it is to find the perfect pair. But step into a Warby Parker store and you'll see it doesn't have to be. Not only will you find a great selection of frames, you'll also meet helpful advisors and friendly optometrists. Yep, many Warby Parker locations also offer eye exams. So the next time you need glasses, sunglasses, contact lenses, or a new prescription, you

You know where to look. To find a Warby Parker store near you or to book an eye exam, head over to warbyparker.com slash retail. Today's episode is brought to you by Soundcore from Anker. The Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds are ultra-comfortable, noise-blocking earbuds that offer unparalleled pressure-free comfort while you sleep. The Sleep A20 earbuds have a 3D ergonomic design combined with air wings that

Tiny wings that help them lock into your ears. All wrapped in a super soft material that makes it ideal for any kind of sleep position. Especially people who sleep on their side, like me. I wore them and it was such a welcome change from the usual clunky headphones and earbuds that hurt your ear or fall out. These were really comfortable and they actually did stay in all night. And the long battery life provides uninterrupted audio all night long.

Using them in sleep mode gets you 14 hours on a single charge and up to 80 hours with charging case to ensure 10 nights full sleep. Get the sleep you deserve with Soundcore Sleep A20 at soundcore.com. That's S-O-U-N-D-C-O-R-E dot com. Use the code SLEEP at checkout to get $30 off. SLEEP in all caps. Tonight, every night, grab your pair and sleep away.

Hey, listeners. Today, we're sharing a past episode of Rethinking from the Archives. Enjoy. Hi, I am Merve Emre. I am an associate professor of English at the University of Oxford and a regular contributor to The New Yorker. Where are you right now?

Well, there are two answers to that. First, I'm in Berlin. I'm on a fellowship this year at the Wissenschaftskolleg, which has been wonderful. But second, I'm under a blanket because I needed to be under a blanket in my office, which has very, very high ceilings. So I cannot see anything except the inside of this blanket. And I've never had a conversation in these conditions.

Well, luckily, podcasting works perfectly in the dark, so that shouldn't be a problem. Hi, everyone. It's Adam Grant. Welcome back to Rethinking, my podcast on the science of what makes us tick. I'm an organizational psychologist, and I'm taking you inside the minds of fascinating people to explore new thoughts and new ways of thinking. Merve's work consistently makes me think again. One of her gifts is revealing how our psychology is shaped by the broader culture around us.

A few years ago, she published a fascinating book on the history of the Myers-Briggs type indicator and the problems with personality tests. And recently, she wrote a brilliant article on how emotional intelligence has been co-opted as a form of corporate control. Get ready to rethink some of your core assumptions about emotions at work. Maybe the place to begin is, have you ever taken an emotional intelligence test?

No, I never have taken an emotional intelligence test. My introduction to emotional intelligence came when I was quite young. I was around 10 and my parents, who were never big talkers, bought me this book by Daniel Goleman called Emotional Intelligence.

And I never read it until recently, but I always, I have a very vivid memory of the cover of that book and where it was perched on our bookshelf. And the sense that I was supposed to read it and was supposed to evaluate my own emotional intelligence, but I never did. And no, I, to this day, still have not taken a test. Have you? I have.

I'm not sure I ever got scored on a test, but I've taken them just to get a feel for what it's like to go through them since I teach the topic. But I'm curious, why didn't you read it and why did you decide not to take one? Well, I didn't read it in part because...

I was probably quite resistant to the idea that I was emotionally unintelligent since presumably the book had been purchased for me in order to supplement some sort of deficiency. But I think later on when I was working as a consultant and when both personality testing and emotional intelligence testing or assessment were very much in the air, I always found something a little bit suspicious about the concepts.

It seemed like the sort of concept that had been made up in order to convince people that there was such a thing as emotional intelligence and that they might be deficient in it in some way. And thus they had to alter their behavior in order to compensate for that deficiency. So I think that kind of suspicion of

ideology of it was always present in my interactions with it. You just said something that I find incredibly fascinating and surprising. You said emotional intelligence sounds like a concept that people would make up to get someone to work on a deficit. Does that mean you think there isn't such a thing as emotional intelligence?

Well, to me, one of the fascinating things about the genesis of the concept, particularly in that 1990 article by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, is how the term emotional intelligence is being derived in part from a tradition of sociological thinking about emotional labor.

And the way that in a growing American service sector, people's communication skills, their abilities to show certain types of emotions are becoming used by corporations as profit generating mechanisms. So what begins or what is theorized initially as a form of labor of people doing work is

Once it becomes recoded in the language of emotional intelligence, it starts to look a lot like an individual aptitude.

And so what, for me at least, that occludes is the really, really concrete social relation, the relationship between an employee and the corporation that employs them that actually makes them have to show certain kinds of emotions or incentivizes them to feel certain kinds of ways toward their work, like loving their work, for instance, so that they may work harder.

And so I think when you have that history in hand, you begin to feel even more suspicious about the idea that this is an actual quality that can be traced back to any aspect of the individual brain or body or mind.

So interesting. I have so many questions for you. I feel like each sentence generates a paragraph worth of questions that I want to ask. I want to start at the individual level of emotional intelligence and say that I do believe there's such a thing. I believe that there are individual differences in the ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions.

How do you see emotional intelligence? Do you believe those individual differences exist? Oh, I think they do. I just don't know that I would call that emotional intelligence necessarily. I think I would say, first of all, that I have some...

skepticism about the term intelligence in general and the way that that term and the conceptualization of it comes out of a very particular context. I think I'm also a little bit resistant to even separating out the individual from the social dimension, Adam. I think, to me at least, there's a real...

there's a real connection between how individuals speak about or perceive or manage their emotions and how they are socialized into doing so.

And I think while it's true that some people may seem naturally more adept at doing that than others, and maybe some people really are naturally more adept, it seems to me that we do a disservice to the idea by thinking about the individual and the social separately in this context.

I think I partially agree with that. I think, you know, I strongly agree with the point that, you know, unlike the way that we tend to think about cognitive ability, emotional intelligence is, you know, is very much socialized and learned.

So if cognitive ability is rooted in part in mitochondrial functioning that's pretty hard to change and control, emotional intelligence is very much a learnable set of skills. And in some families, in some schools, in some workplaces, those skills are more easily honed and developed than others. But I still want to separate out the individual because regardless of where you learn those skills, we've all met people who are terrible at managing their emotions and people who excel at it.

And I know if I were running an airline, I would want to either hire or train pilots and flight attendants to not panic at the first sign of turbulence.

I would say I'd probably also want teachers who are really skilled in reading their students' emotional expressions so they can figure out who's getting discouraged and who might be disengaged from the classroom. And it seems like those skills, whether they emerged in a social context or not,

still exist inside somebody's head, right? Oh, certainly. I wouldn't deny that they, yes, exist in people's minds, of course. And I also don't think I could deny that

Some people just have more chill than others. Having two children, one who has like no chill and one who's very chill, I wouldn't deny that there is some sort of baseline difference in people's reactions to external stimuli. And you would have a better biochemical or psychological account than I would for what explains that. And I am fascinated by that.

But I think to me, once you start talking about emotional intelligence, right, once you name the term, once you mobilize it as a category for, say, differentiating which teachers you want in the classroom and which ones you don't, then I think the degree to which an individual's capacity matters starts to shrink. Interesting. Why is that?

Well, because then it's already part of some process of social differentiation, right? So the moment you say, for instance, I want to hire a teacher who has emotional intelligence, right? Or I'm not sure if you would say that. Actually, why don't you tell me? How would somebody frame that exactly? Yeah.

Well, I'd probably try to figure out what kinds of emotional skills are relevant in the job, right? So when I think about teaching, I think about that as a high emotional demand job. I think about, you know, lots of anxious kids, stressed out parents, and I think about that as a high emotional demand job.

And I'd want to try to figure out which emotional skills are relevant in that job. I think in a lot of cases, right, being unable to manage your own emotions or your students and their parents' emotions interferes with your ability to educate. If I were hiring, I would, you know, I would run some tryouts or gather some work samples. I'd have teachers teach mock classes.

And, you know, if a teacher had an emotional outburst and screamed at a student, I would probably consider that an unhirable offense. Yes, I think teachers screaming at students is probably unhirable. One thing I would just point out, and the person who talks about this really brilliantly is the sociologist Arlie Hochschild. I would point out the very, very close relationship between emotional labor. I'll call it emotional labor. We could also call it emotional intelligence labor.

But the very close relationship between jobs that require communication, that require the demonstration of care, I would point out the close relationship between those jobs and gender.

So it's not an accident, I don't think, that many of the jobs that one describes as being emotionally demanding are jobs that are overwhelmingly done by women. And in part because they've historically been done by women are also increasingly feminized jobs. So there are jobs where we expect emotion to be shown. And I think that is one aspect of

of the relationship between the individual and the social that I would point to. So for me, it feels really difficult to separate out some of the claims we want to make about individuals and their, say, natural aptitudes for things like flexibility or empathy and larger theories or ideas about gender and who it is that we expect to have those kinds of capacities.

At first blush, that resonates with me, right? I think about so many jobs in the service sector that are very much gendered, right? Where women are stuck doing a lot of the emotional labor and suppressing their own feelings to appease customers or clients. And yet, as I think about this more, I'm starting to wonder if there's something to rethink here, which is there are also a lot of male-dominated jobs that have heavy emotional demands.

I think about most of the dangerous jobs. If you think about working as a police officer, extreme emotional demands. A firefighter, same deal. I think about leadership jobs, which have extraordinary emotional demands. And sadly, we still live in a world where leadership is overwhelmingly done by men.

And I wonder how accurate is this assumption that the majority of the jobs that involve heavy emotional demands are female versus the places where we've happened to talk about and study emotional labor happen to skew female? Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, I think one of the things that we're seeing increasingly since the time Hochschild wrote that book is that

even though emotional labor began as this feminized concept. Now, increasingly, there is the expectation that women,

many, many people who are not necessarily women will take it on as part of their responsibility and as part of what it means to be a good employee. And I think that has to do in many ways simply with the expansion of the service sector, that now there are many more jobs that are organized around communication, that are organized around people-to-people exchange, rather than organized around the manufacturing of goods.

And so I think because of that, one of the things that we're seeing is not necessarily that emotionally intensive jobs or jobs that require a great deal of emotional labor are necessarily being done by women, but that this feminized concept is actually something that

has become part of many, many jobs that are being done by people regardless of whether they are men or women. And so it's not really, to me at least, it's not about who's doing the job, but rather that this idea which began or originated from a particularly feminized kind of work actually now defines much of the work that's done in advanced industrial, advanced industrial countries.

Although, of course, it's much more intense in care work. And I think care work, by and large, does continue to be dominated by women. I want to talk about your article. Sure, yes. So I thought your article in The New Yorker critiquing emotional intelligence was ingenious. And this idea has been popular now for a quarter century and ever.

I've had lots of concerns about the way that it's talked about and used in workplaces. I've read lots of critiques of it. Never, never had I seen it talked about in this way as corporate control.

And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you arrived at that view and what your concerns are about the way that managers and organizations are using emotional intelligence to influence people and coerce them. So I should probably just start by saying that the piece is

was occasioned by the 25th anniversary of Daniel Goleman's bestselling book, Emotional Intelligence. So it was originally published in 1995. And like I said, my parents bought me a copy back in 1995 and I didn't read it then, but reading it 25 years later was really extraordinary to me in part because I think over the past 25 years,

One of the things that's happened is that they're within the mainstream of education, of media, of reporting, et cetera. We have much more sophisticated languages and tools at our disposal to think about the relationship between the individual and the society that he or she inhabits.

And so to me, one of the most striking things about Goldman's book when I started reading it was this really peculiar mismatch between the examples he gave of people who don't have emotional intelligence and people who do. So Adam, I don't know if you remember this or not, but so many of the negative examples in the book

are these stories, these horrific stories about people murdering their own children and stabbing strangers. All of these violent, violent scenarios that he sort of offers as examples of when people couldn't control themselves. So I started chasing down the sources, the news reports or the scientific papers from which these were being drawn.

And to me, what was really fascinating was the way that stories that were being written, reports or newspaper articles that were being written in the 90s about the effects of people living in abject poverty or the effects of people having really, really unequal access to resources like legal assistance, mental health care, education, etc.,

were being taken by Goleman in order to yield these parables of individuals who had simply failed to control themselves.

And then how those examples were being countered with what I take to be essentially a kind of loosey-goosey self-help regime that Goleman is elaborating about how you need to control your temper and how you need to manage your own emotion. And then the second question that I had was, you know, this idea, emotional intelligence, is extraordinarily popular in the corporate world.

It has been totally taken up by the Harvard Business Review, by Fortune 500 companies, by business schools. And I wanted to understand what exactly it was that employers were gaining from it.

And it seems to me that if you can convince your employees to control themselves, to control their emotions, then one thing it does is that it completely represses any sort of resentment they might have toward the conditions in which they have to work, including the conditions in which their psychological well-being or their self-comportment is made available for profitability.

And so it was kind of that one-two step between looking at how the book was constructed and what it was occluding in its examples, and then looking at who was actually taking this idea up and what they were using it for that I think come together in the article as the critique that I offer of emotional intelligence.

When you talk about the social and historical context being missing from these examples of emotional outbursts and people not being able to control their affective responses, I think about one of the earliest demonstrations of individual differences in emotional intelligence, which is the Walter Mischel marshmallow study.

And I think in the original presentation of that research, there are toddlers who have a single marshmallow in front of them. And the strong desire, the intense emotion is, I want to eat it now. And then the question is, can they wait 15 minutes? And then they'll be rewarded with not one, but two marshmallows. And I think it made a huge splash when Michelle published this research, because

and found that the toddlers who were able to resist the temptation to eat the one marshmallow now and hold off for two later got better scores on the SAT and had better grades in school. And Walter found in his own research, but it didn't come to broad light until recently, that if you look at who has that ability to delay gratification in the first place, who's able to resist the temptation, guess what? There are huge social class differences between

Kids who grew up in poverty were much less likely to be able to resist the temptation. Having a marshmallow now is something that they responded to, right? They grew up in an environment where it was rare that you would even have the opportunity to access the food that you might want at this moment. Meanwhile, kids who grew up in pretty comfortable conditions knew that walking away from a

And they were also more likely to trust that the experimenter was, you know, was, was good for delivering on the promise. And so I, I,

I thought of that as you were talking, and I was wondering, is that the kind of information that you think is missing when we look at the social context that's been erased from studying why do some people seem to have better emotion regulation skills than others? I think that's absolutely right. That is the kind of information that is missing. And I think in Goleman's book, from which this whole phenomenon really springs, it's

It's missing at a macro level in a truly astonishing way, which is that evidence or statistics about violence are given and then are simply attributed to what he repeatedly throughout the book calls mean-spiritedness. And that it's, I suppose, understandable, if still questionable that somebody could write that in the mid 90s.

But what's really, really appalling to me is that this book was republished 25 years later and nobody thought to revisit the way that these claims were being framed. Wow. Yeah, I mean, in some ways, you know, there's a part of me that...

that sympathizes because this is what we do as psychologists, right? We write about individuals and we study small groups and most psychologists are not good sociologists.

At the same time, though, to completely ignore the broader cultural and structural forces that shape whether delay of gratification is taught, whether it's valued, whether it's actually a risk factor as opposed to a skill, that does seem dangerous. I mean, it just does seem to me like psychologists need to become better sociologists, but particularly if you're writing about

a book that is for a general audience, right? If you're not presenting people with the actual research, if you're not unfolding where your numbers come from, then I think it's even more incumbent on you to make your claims as defensible and to contextualize them as richly and as responsibly as you can.

Yeah. Well, I guess that maybe takes us to the second part of your critique, which is this whole idea that emotional intelligence is corporate control. Especially over the past year during the pandemic, I have been deeply disturbed by the fact that

So many organizations said, okay, you know what? We're obviously in a difficult situation right now. So we're going to train you in emotional intelligence. We're going to teach you to manage all your stress. As opposed to saying, you know what? Maybe this is the right time to finally fire some abusive bosses and start eliminating oppressive rules and stop micromanaging people. It seems like emotional intelligence training is often used as a band-aid

And what we need to do actually is cure a sick culture. I would add to that, I think what we also need are to provide more benefits to workers and to provide more job security. And I think to me, where this was really apparent is many of my friends work in universities and they're

It was really astonishing how little universities provided for child care during the pandemic, that they expected people to homeschool their children or just to have their children at home and also teach their classes at the same time.

And when people became really burned out and really stressed, what they offered them was not, you know, a course release or additional help or just a, just a break in one way or another, but what they offered them were, you know, mindfulness training over zoom or classes, 10 tips on how to manage your stress. And that's not what anybody needs. And so I think that, um,

A lot of these ideas, like emotional intelligence, like personality testing, mindfulness, resilience, the power of positive thinking, I mean, all of these are very powerful ideologies.

that allow corporations to get away with increasing job insecurity, with demanding more of their workers. And if you don't do what they ask you to do, if you don't commit yourself fully to those demands, making you feel like you are not a good team player, you are not sufficiently empathetic to what the corporation needs.

So I think that, yes, it's both a Band-Aid, but it's also like a finger to poke in the wound at the same time. Yeah, gosh, it makes me think that one of the things we need to do with leaders moving forward is just to ban psychological solutions to organizational problems.

Yes, I think that's true. I would completely, completely agree with that. I would guess that the amount of money that is spent on implementing those psychological solutions could be repurposed in much more worker-friendly ways.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now boarding Group A. Please have your boarding passes ready to scan. If your phone is cracked, old, or was chewed up by your Chihuahua travel companion, please refrain from holding up the line. And instead, simply go to Verizon and trade in any phone in any condition from one of their top brands for the new Samsung Galaxy S25 Plus with Galaxy AI on Unlimited Ultimate and a watch or tab. Also on them. Service plan required for watch or tab. Trade in and additional terms apply. See Verizon.com for details.

We'll see you next time.

With over 600,000 five-star reviews, this best-selling foundation is going viral for a reason. Take the Power Match Quiz now at ilmakiage.com slash quiz. I-L-M-A-K-I-A-G-E dot com slash quiz.

There's nothing better than indulging in the mouth-watering taste of unrivaled quality. And the Omaha Steaks Big Yum event is the perfect time to save on legendary flavor backed by their 100% guarantee. With endless variety, you can bring home the world's best steak experience at omahasteaks.com. Plus, get an extra $20 off with promo code HOLIDAY at checkout.

Their legendary steaks are hand-selected from the finest grain-finished beef for superior marbling and hand-cut by master butchers in America's heartland to deliver exceptional taste and tenderness. The fan-favorite filet mignon has even earned the coveted title of USDA Certified Tender.

The Omaha Steaks Big Yum event is the perfect time to discover something delicious at omahasteaks.com. Plus, our listeners get an extra $20 off with promo code HOLIDAY at checkout. Visit omahasteaks.com and get an extra $20 off with promo code HOLIDAY. Minimum purchase may apply. ♪♪♪

So let's talk about emotional labor. You've referenced Arlie Hochschild's classic work, and there's been a lot of research over the last few decades on the skills of emotional labor. It turns out that some of them are more stressful and exhausting to employees than others. So, you know, surface acting, just having to fake an emotion that you don't feel is a great way to burn yourself out.

Deep acting, actually trying to feel the emotion that you want to show, seems to be a little bit more empowering. If we go back to the pilot dealing with a flight emergency, it's one thing to be told, you must put on a happy face, probably not helpful. It's another thing to be taught a set of skills for identifying the emotion that's going to allow you to land the plane safely, and then practicing techniques to get yourself into that frame of mind.

And that seems to be important. I think we want to equip people with those skills. So how do you think about when this is corporate control and manipulation and when it's actually useful training for an important job? Well, I would just point out one thing about the surface acting versus deep acting differentiation, which is that, I mean, one of Hochschild's arguments is that

people have a very, very strong incentive to actually feel the emotions that they are displaying because it becomes sort of psychologically agonizing, right, to be faking it. There's nothing more, I think, angst-inducing than faking it until you make it, right? And I think it's really important to recognize that

corporations, but also employees and individuals have a very strong incentive to actually believe in the feelings that they are trained to feel or that they are incentivized to feel. And so one interesting response to the piece, at least, has been I've gotten emails from people that have said, well, yes, but it actually works.

And emotional intelligence actually works. And my answer is just, well, of course it works. There's every reason that it should work because nobody wants to feel like they're faking an emotion. So I think it's important to sort of put a little bit more pressure on what the relationship is between the sort of surface level phenomenon and the deep phenomenon of feeling.

I think once you start doing that, you know, it becomes difficult to say where corporate control begins and where it ends. I think all you can say is that it would be

better, or the kind of world that we want to live in, is one where people did not feel that if they were not performing emotional labor at the level at which they felt it needed to be performed at, they would worry about their jobs being at risk. That it would be okay to be disinterested. And that doesn't have to be attached to

as strongly as it is now to the security of their job or the profitability of the work that they do. So that's the kind of alternate that I'm imagining. I think I'm inclined to agree with that. I think in principle, it makes a lot of sense. And it aligns with Alicia Grandy's research on display rules versus display autonomy, which

To say, look, if you have a set of strict rules for here are the emotions that you're allowed to show, here are the ones that you aren't, and you're in big trouble if you violate those rules, that's very different than saying, look, here's what we've learned about what it means to be effective in this job. And obviously, you have the freedom to figure out what's effective for you. That being said, I...

I don't know how to apply this to the teacher example that we talked about earlier. Let's take another example. Let's take a therapist. I don't think I would want to see or employ a therapist who was completely emotionally unreadable. I don't think I would want to see a therapist...

who was not effective at figuring out, okay, what does this job require? And what does, if I'm in an organization, what does management expect out of effective therapists? And how do I manage my emotions to stay professional? I don't know. I think surely...

one wouldn't want a therapist that was unreadable all the time, but I mean, surely it's okay to have therapists who, uh,

don't always have to be totally legible to you, right? I agree, but that would actually make that a mark of emotional intelligence then, right? Because that's a therapist who says, okay, there are times when it's important for me to be emotionally transparent and there are times when

I don't want the client to worry about exactly what I'm feeling or to respond to my emotion. I want to center their experience. And isn't that in and of itself skill in managing and expressing emotions? But I suppose, how can you tell? So I'm thinking about all those moments in movies or in sitcoms

where you have the really bored therapist, right? The therapist who's clearly not listening to what his or her client is saying. And the client misreads that as being a kind of invitation to self-discovery in the absence of dialogue. And I think those moments are really funny because they get at that question of intention being basically unreadable.

And I guess that's what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for it to be okay for people not to make their emotional lives available to others in work situations. Yeah. And does that go both ways? You should have the freedom to withhold emotions. You should also have the freedom to express them. Yes, absolutely. I think...

Where this gets complicated, though, is if we think about the different dimensions of emotional intelligence, right? So perceiving emotions, the ability to recognize your own feelings and also read people's tone of voice and facial expressions accurately. Then there's the ability to understand emotions, to know, okay, I may have recognized that I'm feeling not sad but disappointed. What caused that?

And then there's a lot of what we've been talking about, which is managing and regulating emotions, being able to control what you feel and also to influence what other people feel.

And there's a bit of a paradox here. I have found in some of the research that I've done that the managing and regulating skills are the most important for job performance, right? It's kind of nice to be able to read what other people are feeling and to know what you're feeling. It's potentially helpful to be able to figure out what's contributing to those feelings. But those skills aren't that useful if you don't have any authority over your own emotional experience, if you can't figure out how to influence other people's emotions.

And, you know, I found, for example, even with salespeople or anybody who walks into a job interview, right? It's like, great if you can read the audience or the interviewer, but you have to be able to take that information and then adjust your own emotional expressions and cultivate the emotions that you're hoping to elicit in them in order to, you know, to get the response you want.

That skill, that ability to regulate and manage emotions, is, I would say, the most important from the data that I have. And yet I'm also hearing from you that you think it's the most dangerous one for leaders or corporations to regulate. Well, the word that kept coming into my mind when you were offering that description was charisma.

To what degree is what you're talking about a form of charisma? And to what degree is that charisma generated by a person's position in a social hierarchy? And to what degree is that charisma independent of it? Is charisma a term that psychologists use or not really?

Yeah, in the organizational psychology world, we normally think about charisma as a judgment that you make that a leader inspires and does that with a combination of power, presence, and warmth.

And yeah, you know, we study individual differences in charisma. There's some research by John Antonakis and his colleagues, which shows that you can actually teach charisma in the sense that, you know, if you teach people to vary their vocal tone and to, you know, sort of dramatize their body language, that speakers who are judged as uncharismatic over the period of a few weeks can elevate their levels of charisma. Why do you ask?

I'm finishing a book right now and one of the chapters of the book that I'm writing is on the use of great literature in business schools to teach leadership. And charisma is the word that keeps coming up and there is a sort of special relationship that is always asserted between what a literary text does and teaching people how to be a charismatic leader.

And some of that goes back to questions of self-management and self-regulation, that part of what charisma is or one kind of action that generates charisma or that is read charismatically is the ability to control yourself in a moment of panic, that there is something incredibly attractive about

about people who are able to totally self-regulate and that that is a style, right? So that becomes the node that connects-

Pedagogy of charisma to literature, right? That what literary texts do is present or unfold across a particular span of time a style of being charismatic, of speaking charismatically, of delivering, say, a monologue in a tone of authority, but also with a certain seductiveness.

And so that's one of the reasons I was just curious, because this actually gets us back to the very first question you asked me, which is like, who would have thought that an English professor would be the person to take these terms and run with it? But it is interesting to me how much language forms the basis for both these concepts, but also ideas about how we would enhance these concepts like leadership or charisma or emotional intelligence.

Yeah, I think, you know, there's a bit of a paradox here too, because...

When you talk about charisma and when I think about the research on training it, I think, okay, one of the things you're doing is you're teaching people certain skills of emotional intelligence that allow them to project an image that comes across as more charismatic, right? You're teaching people to be more aware of their facial expressions, to be more cognizant of the way that they articulate their ideas and the vocal intonations that may or may not inspire or engage their audience. Right?

And as you do that, you are developing emotional intelligence. At the same time, to be judged as charismatic, there has to be a quality of effortlessness, right? You can't force it. And I think what's so magnetic about people who, you know, are able to stay calm and collected in stressful situations, for example, is they seem to do it naturally. And I

I wonder if then part of the skill of emotional intelligence here is the ability to look like you're not trying that hard. Yes. I think the elimination of effort is really important in part because it's an elimination of the work that has gone into projecting that charismatic or that self-assured front. I

I mean, to me, what is fascinating about the kind of sociology of service labor and also these classes that use literature to cultivate leadership skills is that there's a very, very strong insistence on rehearsal, that what one does is seek out scenarios where things can be rehearsed

So that when the actual event happens, it's not just sort of automated. The response isn't just automated, but it's also made to appear effortless. It makes me think we should spend more time studying charismatic people who fail and looking at does, for example, their charisma become a crutch? Are they so used to being charming that they don't prepare enough?

We should also do the opposite and study leaders who are lacking in the traditional qualities of charisma, but manage to drive the, well, I guess manage to guide teams and organizations to accomplish great things and ask, how did they do that? But see, this is so funny, Adam. This is the difference between you and me is you want to study people. And I have no idea why anyone would want to study people, like individual people. Of course I want to study people. People are what make the world go round.

No, I think structures are what make the world go round and people are generally just expressions of the structures they're in. Oh, Mervé, please, please, please. You know what? I have to intercede on this one because I had this debate in my very first class of grad school, right? I come in to study organizational psychology. The first class I go to is an organizational sociology class.

And the professor says, one thing you should know about this class is there will not be a single human in it. Because what really matters is, you know, organizations are, you know, even organizations are reflections of their industries and their periods in time. And, you know, we need to study how people are essentially products of their environment. And the environment is the organization and the larger field that the organization belongs to. I laughed out loud. Who created those structures? People.

Yeah, I just don't think that people are individually all that exceptional. Or I think like, yes, of course, people create those structures. But I think ultimately, they're much more shaped in how they create the structures by the structures that precede them than by anything else. But what I've learned spending a year at the Wissenschaftskolleg, where I'm surrounded with psychologists and evolutionary biologists and philosophers, is that

is that it's completely fascinating to see what different disciplines take

as the starting point for their analysis. And one of the things that I have learned is that we can all be, I think, a little bit more thoughtful about what those starting points are and how if a different discipline takes a different starting point, right, say a structure as opposed to an individual, what different kinds of knowledge it might show us about how the world works.

So I think you should go take that class right now. I think you should go back to grad school and take that class right now. Well, I took it. I still took the class. Oh, good, good. And I think I learned to be – it's a little bit like sort of visiting a country long enough and studying the language enough that you can follow it but maybe not contribute to it. Right. I can have this conversation, right? I can talk about social structures and systems differently.

I also think, though, that when we stop there, we create self-fulfilling prophecies, right? If people are only products of their environments and the systems around them, then they're not going to bother to try to change them. And also, one of the all-time great organizational psychologists, Bob Kahn, used to ask, where does the organization go when everyone goes home at night? It doesn't exist anymore.

Right. These structures have to be recreated and reconstituted by people's actions and interactions. And so I prefer to think about structure as something that we create and reinforce and sometimes shatter as opposed to just something that's out there in the world that acts on us. Well,

Well, the answer is that it's both, right? I mean, the best way to think about it is to put those two terms into conversation with each other and to let them be contradictory at moments, but to let that hopefully spur us to think about what we can do better, what we can change and what we want to change. Yes, I think that's exactly right. Do you have other thoughts on how we should rethink emotional intelligence?

I mean, I sort of think we should probably get rid of the term and go back to talking about emotional labor. But I realize you and I are likely to have a long fight about that. And I do want to have that fight because I think it'll be an interesting and productive one. I'll just say the one stake I will plant in the ground is that if we only talk about emotional labor, we overlook the fact that this is a set of skills.

And those are skills that a lot of people find value in developing, right? Not only for their contributions to their organizations and their ability to be professionals, but also in their families, right? How many, I cannot tell you, Merve, how many parents, and I'm probably one of these parents, marvel at how emotionally adept we are at work and how much worse we are at home.

And I think that makes me a worse parent. The fact that I'm not as good at controlling my emotions when I get frustrated with our kids as I am when I get frustrated with my colleagues at work, I think that actually detracts from my ability to get across what might be some of my most important parenting lessons.

I want to think about this as a skill set and I want to think about how I can keep honing that skill set because oftentimes, you know, the struggles we have at managing our emotions prevent us from expressing our values and achieving our goals. I think I would say two things. The first is if we want to stick with the vocabulary of skills, then it's not clear to me why intelligence gets us closer to that than labor.

Since when we think about labor, we do think about skills that are associated with the work that we do, don't we? So I just, I don't actually think maintaining the term intelligence necessarily eliminates our capacity to talk about skills.

But I would also say that I don't know if we should be talking about skills. I think we should be talking about relationships because the problem with talking about skills, to me at least, is that it does individualize what is essentially a social phenomenon. So when you talk about getting angry at home, right, or losing your temper with the kids, which I do as well. I mean, I think every parent does.

seems to me to be missing or what becomes kind of blanketed, as it were, in that...

in that interaction is the dyad, right? It's not just about you, the parent. It's about you and the child and how the two are interacting. And to me, that's what the language of skill makes it much harder to talk about. And the language of relationality brings that into focus, for me at least, in a much, much clearer way. I really like that. Oh, thank you. It

It's a way to make it partially your kid's fault too. So, well, yeah, that's what I was going to say. I was going to say in some cases, it's easier to think about working on my own emotional intelligence and the application of the skills that I know I use elsewhere than it is to say, okay, you know, we've, we've got to teach a, a kid who doesn't necessarily have a fully developed prefrontal cortex yet, you know, to, to interact differently. But I want to

Yeah.

I just find the idea of thinking about the skills as opposed to the labor a little bit more autonomy supportive, which is, you know, ironically what you're critiquing about the way that corporations manage emotional intelligence. The other thing that I think about here is

When I hear emotional intelligence, I see it as a little bit liberating. We live in a society that judges people heavily on their intelligence and mostly does that in terms of their mathematical and verbal skills. So we have too many kids who grow up in America and other parts of the world, too, who are told they're not smart.

And I think by calling it an intelligence, it legitimates the fact that, okay, you might not be a math whiz. You might not be the person who will write the next Shakespeare play or the next Maya Angelou poem. But you have a very important set of cognitive capacities that really matter in the world. Do you want to rob people of that, Merve? Absolutely.

I like how you asked that. So I think there are two questions there. The first is, I mean, I think you're right that there's a reason you don't want to think about it as labor because then you don't have to see it as the employee-employer relationship anymore. Because when I'm talking about labor, I'm not talking really about an activity that someone is doing, but I'm talking about a kind of position.

that somebody occupies and a political and economic position that someone has to occupy and the kind of work that they have to do because of it. And so, yes, of course, talking about it as intelligence focuses or centers an idea of autonomy, but I'm saying that that is in part a false idea of autonomy. But then to your second question, it's also

not a false idea of autonomy, right? I think one of the reasons emotional intelligence or personality are as popular as they are is precisely because of what you say, that they do give people a sense of self, right?

Right. They give people a language or a vocabulary by which they can understand themselves as having a certain set of capacities. And now they have an idiom and terms to use in order to describe that. And it can be incredibly grounding the same way that I told you that I want to think about the interdependence.

the interrelation between people and the structures that they occupy. I think this here too is an example where we can think on the one hand about ideology and on the other hand about something quite utopian in that idea that there may be people who are simply more emotionally adept than others, that this might be an overall good to the world and that we might be able to learn something from people who have this capacity

about relationality more generally. And so I, again, just don't want to let go of this ability to think about this concept or to come at this concept from both sides.

I love that. That, I mean, mic drop. If we were live in a room with an audience right now, people would be cheering. You just crushed it. I think that that captures both my enthusiasm for emotional intelligence and my concerns about it in one fell swoop. Oh, thank you. This was so much fun. And I really, I really like fighting with you. It's very fun. I didn't even feel like we were fighting. Yeah.

Rethinking is part of the TED Audio Collective. The show is hosted by me, Adam Graham, and produced by TED with Transmitter Media. Our team includes Colin Helms, Greta Cohn, Dan O'Donnell, Joanne DeLuna, Grace Rubinstein, Michelle Quint, Banban Cheng, and Anna Phelan. This episode was produced by Constanza Gallardo and Jessica Glazer. Our show is mixed by Rick Kwan. Original music by Hans Dale Sue and Alison Leighton Brown. Additional production by Cosmic Standard.

I feel like a troll under a bridge or something. You know, three billy goats are about to come trip-trapping over me and I'm going to have to ask them some sort of riddle to let them pass. Are you doing this for the podcast or do you just enjoy hiding under blankets? I mean, a little bit of both.

Get unlimited talk, text, and data for just $25 a month with Boost Mobile forever.

After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan. I used to think buying foundation online was impossible. How am I supposed to find my shade when I can't even get it right in store? Then I discovered Il Makiage. I took their AI-powered quiz to find my custom match, and wow, this foundation is literally my skin in a bottle. The undertone and coverage are spot on. It's so neutral and weightless, I can't even tell I'm wearing makeup.

Plus, with Try Before You Buy, you can try your full size at home for 14 days. Take the Power Match Quiz now at ilmakiage.com slash quiz. I-L-M-A-K-I-A-G-E dot com slash quiz. Are you still quoting 30-year-old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you still think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide.

And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now. It pays to discover. Learn more at discover.com slash credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report.