Emotional Intelligence as a Screening Tool for Employment

[King_Oni]

So I read this article just now and it poses a really interesting conundrum (which I will try to summarize below, in italics, since it's a long read. All you ADHD folks may thank me later )

Autism Without Fear: Is Corporate Use of 'Emotional Intelligence' Grounds for Discrimination Under the ADA? | Michael John Carley

In short; the article talks about Emotional Intelligence (EI), and how it's becoming a measuring stick to see if someone is qualified for a job. In this day and age companies like to have statistics about everything, including elaborate reports about potential employees.

As many know, people on the autism spectrum aren't always well known for their range of emotion, emotional depth and ability to recognize it as such (though obviously some are pretty well developed in that area). Yet, if companies are using EI as a benchmark to hire people you are actively excluding people on the spectrum as such, and thus this might fall under a form of discrimination... even moreso when the job at hand doesn't require EI to be functional.

That's the short of it; the article also discusses how even Human resource departments have no clue about the legality (and that this practice in fact might be illegal) and that this might be the start of something totally new in terms of employment and hiring people as well covering new grounds in terms of discrimination.

I found this a rather interesting notion and highly relevant for people on the spectrum to think about.

Thoughts? Can, or should EI be a factor in hiring someone? When should it? When shouldn't it? Do you think such a practice is illegal? Do you feel that it's perfectly fine to do so?

 

[Lukas]

Highly discriminatory it is!

I would say that emotional stability should be required in some professions... i.e. Police officer on patrol, combat soldier, etc. Professions that emotional instability could have dramatic and in fact fatal consequences in some circumstances. Professions such as these require a lot more than just emotional stability... they require personality, intelligence, rational thinking under pressure, etc. Many people do not qualify for jobs like this due to a variety of reasons, emotional stability being one of them.

However, while the applicant may not be suited as a patrol officer, that doesn't mean that the applicant would not suited for work as an investigator or as an administrator for said department.

There is room in every company in every country for every type of human being, thus, IMHO EI is totally unnecessary and thus discriminatory if a specific score is required for employment.

Hope this makes sense. Having a bit of difficulty reading atm.

P.S. taking some sort of EI test for employment is basically forced disclosure and thus against the ADA I believe.

 

[bentHnau]

I think it's the same as almost any other "soft skill": perfectly fine in theory, genuinely useful in the hands of only a few, but subject to anything from minor to gross misuse (including discriminatory misuse) in practice, depending on the bias of whomever is authoring, administering, and scoring the associated tests and weighing this information as part of hiring decisions.

 

[Daniel]

I'd prefer a workplace where intuition was used to make these judgments, and that whoever administered tests like these understood their limitations.

I worked at a place where they did emotional intelligence testing on a bunch of upper-level people, and I got to see the tests and the resulting scores. At least on this one test, if you want to get a high "EQ"--answer all either "Strongly Disagree" or "Strongly Agree", because that shows that you're the kind of person who knows him/herself. The people who had more answers in the middle of the five-point scale got noticeably lower scores. One even got flagged for trying to rate herself higher and making herself look better, so it's good to avoid trying to self-aggrandize, apparently.

I hope employers understand that there's value in having employees who are there to focus on their tasks, and not use these tests as a form of "personality management".

 

[Turk]

Yes it's discrimination, but companies seem focused on whether employees are stable enough to mix with there existing workforce, these days. I know of many instances of them putting these qualities before skill sets. I have sat and passed many of these, because once you've sat one, you've sat them all. Why, you might ask.? Because most are preconceived test questions, carried by unqualified staff. As is the way many of us live our life to fit in, it's just another script. A qualified psychologist might be able to weed me out, but these lab monkeys, haven't got a clue, which makes it all the more dangerous. And yes you'd be right Oni, these human resource depts., have no idea how many laws they contravene. Of the times I've seen them tested, on the basis of discrimination, they just find a more legal reason, to decline the applicant. This is one of those times where being yourself, probably won't get you the job.

 

[Last Fortress]

more bs from Michael John Carley.

like every other news paper person out there.
next day is will be about certain poo,etc.

 

[rollerskate]

Ah, I see this about the ever popular pre-interview "personality test"...

My best scores have been obtained by avoiding the middle of the road ("neutral") and sticking to mostly "agree/disagree" and selecting "strongly agree/strongly disagree" to the most obvious stuff, like questions regarding moral/ethics.

The issue is, these quizzes are designed and graded on the assumption that the taker is honest. Because of this they can be easily gamed by the exact people they're supposed to deter. So they're really not effective for much besides deterring those they're supposed to NOT deter, i.e. emotionally mature and HONEST people...

 

[King_Oni]

The issue is, these quizzes are designed and graded on the assumption that the taker is honest. Because of this they can be easily gamed by the exact people they're supposed to deter. So they're really not effective for much besides deterring those they're supposed to NOT deter, i.e. emotionally mature and HONEST people...

Which is pretty much what Turk pointed out. If you sat through one of these tests, you sat through them all since they're both pretty much the same.

And that is pretty sad. I reckon many of these tests are written and multiple choice, rather than extensive verbal assessments to include body language, response time and more of these factors (that's probably where you would need to be a somewhat decent actor to fake it all) . It seems that acquiring statistics is pretty much a binary process where yes and no answers (and sometimes a slightly variation of "slightly agree/disagree") seems key and people are based on a cumulative score rather than a personal impression in combination with answers they give.

 

[Ylva]

If employers want to hire people to socialise with, let them. I don't give a ****.

Incidentally, people who've been abused as children have higher emotional intelligence – and a LOT of aspies have been abused, starting with childhood. So statistically speaking, it is us they should hire.

Also, from the article:

And the article also pointed out what some, but not all of the corporations who use EI understand: that while EI is indeed a benefit to socially-oriented positions such as sales, it has actually been proven to be a detriment in less-social vocations such as scientist, data entry, financial analyst, or auto mechanic.

 

[rollerskate]

Ummm... I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Most of the abused women I've been around are the complete opposite, and the social workers/counselors that I've talked to have shared that most of the women they have worked with are this way. They become their abusers (i.e. become abusers themselves) and lack the self awareness that is crucial in breaking the cycle. I have to constantly be on my toes in my current situation to make sure I don't allow them to drag me back in to the cycle myself (as a victim... rather than become counter-dependent I responded to my abuse by becoming co-dependent).

If employers want to hire people to socialise with, let them. I don't give a ****.

Incidentally, people who've been abused as children have higher emotional intelligence – and a LOT of aspies have been abused, starting with childhood. So statistically speaking, it is us they should hire.

Also, from the article:

 

[AsheSkyler]

Eh, I guess I don't mind. But I think they should be very flexible about the threshold. If you're a stocker or technician, how much EI do you need? If you're a therapist or doctor, you better have a helluva lot.