Decision-making – logic vs emotion

Look back at your responses to the questions we posed in Learning about our emotions. What was it like exploring the idea of emotions at work?

If you found it difficult, you are not alone. This is because there has been a historical and unresolved tension between using logic or emotion as a guide for most appropriate way to act or behave at work.

Take a look at Joshua Freedman’s article on the Origins of emotional intelligence. He speaks of Dr Daniel Goleman, whose international bestseller ‘Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ’ is widely recognised as kick-starting the idea of emotional intelligence at work.

Goleman tells the story of two psychology professors, John Meyer and Peter Salovey, who were discussing political leaders while painting a house together.

They wondered: How could someone so smart act so dumb? Their conclusion:

Smart decision-making requires more than the intellect as measured by traditional IQ.

(Freedman 2005)

Your task

Here are two competing ideas around the value of emotions in life and work:

1. Passionate emotions are dangerous, causing people to act foolishly in fits of anger and exuberance. (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts 2012: 105)
2. Emotions are critical for providing motivation, purpose and meaning in everyday life. (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts 2012: 105)

Do you prefer to make decisions by logic or emotion?

Explain why in the community of practice in the comments area.

References

_{Freedman, J. (2005) ‘Dr Daniel Goleman on the origins of emotional intelligence’, Six seconds [online] available from https://www.6seconds.org/2005/01/30/goleman-emotional-intelligence/ [30 June 2018]}

_{Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books}

_{Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., and Roberts, R. (2012) ‘Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled’. Japanese psychological research 54 (2), 105–127}

Further reading

_{Leahy, R. L. (2007) ‘Emotion and psychotherapy’. Clinical psychology: science and practice 14, 353–357}