"When I went on to write my next book, Working With Emotional Intelligence, I wanted to make a business case that the best performers were those people strong in these skills"
About this Quote
Goleman is doing something slyly transactional here: he’s translating the messy, “soft” terrain of feelings into the hard currency of performance. The phrase “make a business case” isn’t an aside; it’s the engine. It signals a world where emotional competence doesn’t earn legitimacy because it’s humane or ethically sound, but because it produces measurable winners. If you’ve ever watched corporate culture absorb a radical idea by turning it into a KPI, you can hear the move happening in real time.
The intent is practical and persuasive: to smuggle psychology into boardrooms that might dismiss it as self-help. Goleman’s earlier work helped popularize emotional intelligence as a framework; this follow-up frames it as an advantage with ROI. That’s why “best performers” matters more than “best people.” He’s not asking organizations to become kinder. He’s suggesting they become smarter about what excellence actually requires.
The subtext is a quiet rebuke of the old meritocracy story: raw IQ, technical chops, and heroic lone-genius myths don’t explain who thrives in complex workplaces. “Those people strong in these skills” points to a different hierarchy, one based on self-regulation, empathy, and social navigation - traits that are harder to credential, easier to underestimate, and often unevenly rewarded depending on gender, race, and class.
Contextually, it fits the late-20th-century moment when companies started talking about teamwork, leadership, and “culture” as competitive moats. Goleman isn’t just describing a truth about performance; he’s offering a user manual for a labor market where emotional labor finally gets named - and promptly monetized.
The intent is practical and persuasive: to smuggle psychology into boardrooms that might dismiss it as self-help. Goleman’s earlier work helped popularize emotional intelligence as a framework; this follow-up frames it as an advantage with ROI. That’s why “best performers” matters more than “best people.” He’s not asking organizations to become kinder. He’s suggesting they become smarter about what excellence actually requires.
The subtext is a quiet rebuke of the old meritocracy story: raw IQ, technical chops, and heroic lone-genius myths don’t explain who thrives in complex workplaces. “Those people strong in these skills” points to a different hierarchy, one based on self-regulation, empathy, and social navigation - traits that are harder to credential, easier to underestimate, and often unevenly rewarded depending on gender, race, and class.
Contextually, it fits the late-20th-century moment when companies started talking about teamwork, leadership, and “culture” as competitive moats. Goleman isn’t just describing a truth about performance; he’s offering a user manual for a labor market where emotional labor finally gets named - and promptly monetized.
Quote Details
| Topic | Work |
|---|
More Quotes by Daniel
Add to List


