Emotional intelligence and IQ: thinking clearly and working through disagreements

A specialist knows the project, brings accurate calculations, and still leaves a meeting feeling unheard. They interrupted a colleague several times, answered a clarification sharply, and now blame everyone else’s lack of competence. Reconstructing the conversation reveals that the dispute concerned numbers, trust, and who would be allowed to finish speaking.

The episode helps explain why emotional skills matter alongside professional knowledge. It does not establish that one kind of intelligence is always more important. Calculation, choosing a solution, and discussing disagreement require different abilities, while working conditions also shape a meeting’s outcome.

Cognitive tests and emotional-intelligence measures address different tasks. EQ itself can refer to abilities involving emotional information, self-reports of habitual responses, or a wider combination of personality and social characteristics. An O’Connor and colleagues review describes these distinctions.

A short questionnaire cannot therefore be compared directly with an IQ result to declare a winner. High EQ cannot be promised to prevent illness or guarantee promotion either. Choose a particular task instead: noticing irritation, tolerating a clarifying question, expressing disagreement, or repairing a sharp reply.

After a meeting, record one sequence: what a colleague said, what you felt, which thought became a presumed fact, and how you answered. “They want to humiliate me” is an interpretation of intent still to be checked. “They asked to see the underlying data” describes an event you can return to.

An ordinary notebook, the MriyaRun online journal, or the EQ Emotion Journal can hold the draft. It need not be complicated. A few specific lines offer more information than a global judgement that you were emotionally incompetent today.

When someone’s voice sounds tense, ask: “Are you concerned about the deadline or the calculations?” Their answer may identify something else entirely. Confidence in reading facial expressions does not remove the need to check.

Your own position can remain intact. You can understand a colleague’s concern and still disagree with their conclusion. Repeating what you heard, naming the disagreement, and deciding which information is needed makes the discussion more concrete. Empathy does not demand constant agreement.

After an uncomfortable episode, answer a few questions in one connected paragraph: what depended on me, what can I repair now, and who needs to be involved? If you interrupted, acknowledge it and offer to return to the colleague’s argument. If information is genuinely missing, decide who will obtain it and by when.

You need not find a positive meaning in every difficulty. Sometimes a clearly named problem and an agreed next meeting are useful enough. Later, review whether the interaction changed.

Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence offers a broad popular discussion of emotions and life. Primal Leadership, by Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee, focuses on leaders and teams. Both appear on Goleman’s book page.

Valeriia Kozlova’s Технологія EQ-BOOST presents an author-developed business approach; the publisher’s page identifies the Ukrainian edition. The Emotionally Intelligent Manager is by David Caruso and Peter Salovey, as confirmed by Wiley.

In How Emotions Are Made, Lisa Feldman Barrett presents her theory of emotion. In The Mood Elevator, Larry Senn discusses changes in mood and behaviour. These are different approaches, not one shared EQ scale or treatment programme.

After reading, choose one small practice for the next conversation. Then notice whether you heard a question fully, checked an assumption, or repaired a remark. Those observations provide a clearer starting point than assigning yourself a final score from a short online quiz.