Imagine this scene: Three executives approach you, the CEO, insisting a fellow executive needs emotional intelligence training. It seems straightforward – if someone lacks EI, get them trained, right?
But listen to that whisper in your mind:
Is this really about improving a colleague, or eliminating a threat?
Are they genuinely concerned about team dynamics, or building a case for someone’s removal?
Why are they approaching as a group rather than addressing concerns directly?
Is EI just a convenient, non-controversial label for “we don’t like working with them”?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: When executives target a peer’s emotional intelligence, they’re often weaponizing psychology’s language against someone they find challenging. The person in question might be abrasive yet effective, direct yet principled, or simply operating with different cultural norms around workplace interaction.
The wiser approach? Turn the mirror:
“Before we send anyone to EI training, let’s assess the entire executive team, me included.”
This reveals whether they’re genuinely concerned with emotional intelligence or merely seeking to pathologize difference. If EI matters, it matters for everyone. If it’s just a proxy for conflict, deeper issues need addressing.
The executive targeted may indeed need development – but so might those who find it easier to diagnose others than examine themselves.
At Nova, we’ve found that when emotional intelligence becomes a weapon rather than a tool, organizations sacrifice the very psychological safety they claim to protect.
