In the past, the query seemed indulgent, even philosophical. Instead of being taught between midterms and finals, emotional intelligence seemed to be something you learned through life. However, in the last ten years, academic institutions have started to view emotional intelligence as a trainable ability rather than an abstract quality, much like how leadership or communication were originally disregarded before becoming required courses.
In contrast to idealism, Margaret Andrews, a professor of emotional intelligence in leadership at Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education, frequently presents the problem with pragmatic clarity. She contends that being amiable or soft-spoken is not a sign of emotional intelligence. It involves identifying emotional cues early on, controlling reactions under duress, and reacting to others with purpose rather than impulse. For students getting ready to enter industries influenced by continuous feedback, public scrutiny, and rising expectations, this framework has proven very helpful.
Emotional intelligence is like a completely different tool in lecture rooms that were designed for memorizing. It functions more like a diagnostic tool than a textbook, exposing routines that pupils hardly ever challenge. In the same way that drivers believe they are above average, Andrews frequently observes that people believe they are self-aware. According to research, that notion is seriously faulty. Objective measurements reveal that self-awareness is much lower than most individuals think, especially among those in leadership roles.
Universities are stepping steps to address this blind area. Technical know-how is no longer a reliable indicator of success. Promising careers are frequently derailed by interpersonal failings rather than ability limitations, according to employers. Graduates’ ability to manage conflict, teamwork, and prolonged pressure is significantly enhanced by emotional intelligence, which serves as the link between knowledge and application.
| Full Name | Raquel Gilar-Corbí |
|---|---|
| Profession | Developmental and Educational Psychologist |
| Academic Role | Professor, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology |
| Institution | University of Alicante, Spain |
| Area of Expertise | Emotional Intelligence, Educational Psychology, Competence-Based Learning |
| Notable Work | Lead author of “Can Emotional Competence Be Taught in Higher Education?” |
| Research Focus | Emotional intelligence training programs, multimethod learning |
| Reference | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01039/full |
Researchers at the University of Alicante created an Emotional Intelligence Training Program that approached EI as a skill that could be methodically taught rather than as a personality feature. Students took part in organized workshops that focused on emotional decision-making, stress management, empathy, and self-awareness. Researchers were able to examine which approaches yielded the best results by using a variety of delivery methods, such as coaching, online learning, and classroom instruction.
The outcomes were strikingly successful. Students showed noticeably better interpersonal awareness and emotional control across all mediums. But the most effective strategy turned out to be coaching. The personalized feedback loop identified areas of weakness while maintaining the student’s voice, much like a competent editor polishing a draft. Coaching established a demanding yet compassionate learning environment by fusing group instruction with introspection.
This strategy reflects developments in higher education abroad. Emotional intelligence is becoming incorporated into leadership labs at business institutions. Instead than treating empathy as an ethical aside, medical programs stress it as a therapeutic competence. Engineering departments are realizing more and more that when teams grow, technical brilliance collapses without emotional cohesion. In a large system, emotional intelligence works like a swarm of bees, with each contact being minor on its own but cumulatively influencing results in unexpectedly obvious ways.
Broader prominent personalities who exhibit emotionally savvy leadership under duress have also influenced the cultural trend. Leaders who are commended for their consistency, self-control, and clarity frequently exhibit emotional intelligence without identifying it. Because of their effect, leadership is now reframed as something based on emotional control rather than power. Universities have responded by teaching students how to cultivate those same skills before errors become costly and widely known.
Demand is being driven by students themselves. Many students struggle with emotional overload even though they are proficient in digital communication when they arrive on school. Disengagement, burnout, and anxiety have become commonplace trends. Programs for emotional intelligence directly address these problems by providing resources for early stress recognition and constructive response. Instead of constantly battling internal reactions, the outcome is emotional efficiency rather than emotional indulgence, enabling students to save energy.
The point of contention has always been assessment. Critics wonder if self-control or empathy can be scored without turning into a performance. However, tools such as situational judgment assessments and the Emotional Quotient Inventory have offered remarkably precise standards. By measuring students’ reactions to authentic emotional situations, these instruments move evaluation away from self-reporting and toward evidence of judgment.
Crucially, teaching emotional intelligence has societal ramifications as well. Unspoken expectations regarding confidence, communication, and emotional expression are frequently faced by students from underprivileged backgrounds. Explicitly teaching emotional intelligence lessens the need for unspoken rules. Through networks and coaching, it democratizes access to talents that were previously acquired informally. Emotional intelligence education thus becomes subtly equitable.
