In my mind, this is another case of IQ vs. EQ.
A research paper published on October 23, 2013, concluded that "people with high interpersonal emotional intelligence influence others' emotions based on their own goals contrary to the general view. Trait emotional intelligence itself is neither positive nor negative, but it can facilitate interpersonal behaviors for achieving goals."
I believe they have confused Emotional Intelligence with influencing behavior. Daniel Goleman's research basically talks about five areas:
Self-awareness
Self control
Motivation
Empathy
Social skills
In my mind, this research can only be focused on the social skills area, because influencing others would fall under that most closely. The subtitle under social skills is "adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others." The 8 sub-topics under social skills are:
Influence
Communication
Conflict management
Leadership
Change catalyst
Building bonds
Collaboration and cooperation
Team capabilities
Given these facts, it seems that this research has focused on one or two of the eight subtopics within the five competencies in the framework that Goleman presented.
While influence is part of Emotional Intelligence, I think that the intellectual researchers are confusing behavior with Emotional Quotient (EQ). One can have a high EQ without having a high influence. If you look at the DISC graph, I expect that many high I types are also high EQ, (high I meaning influencing). There are also many high S types who are high EQ, and they would be less influencing. So if the high EQ people were also high I, then I agree with the results. But that does not mean that all high EQ people are high influencing.
Let's assume that we just focus on the external or Social Competence part of EQ, this still includes Empathy and Social Skills. One can be high in each of these two areas without being high Influencing because there are 13 subcategories.
So I'm wondering if this is about high IQ people trying to discredit the research that shows that high EQ people tend to advance faster in organizations. Is this research trying to say that they influence or manipulate people into advancing them? I have met many high IQ people who don't have a high enough Emotional Quotient to "get people." Some of these people go to the best colleges, yet they don't understand why those who may have a lower IQ are offered opportunities that they are not. I still remember my first management position where I lead a team of two engineering peers who went to "better colleges." At the time I didn't know what Emotional Intelligence was, but I knew that I was not the stereotypical engineer.
The good news for the high IQ people is that increasing one's EQ is very possible, and much easier than increasing one's IQ by the same amount. In fact, most people will see their EQ increase with age. With a little guidance and some rigorous journaling, just about anyone can increase their Emotional Intelligence significantly.
From what I gleaned from the research it seems that this is a very small sample case of 80 students, who were either influencing or being influenced. These numbers are so small that I am not sure how you can draw any sort of conclusion because the certainty is statistically insignificant. It seems that the high EQ people influenced the low EQ people, realizing that low EQ could also include low self-confidence or self-esteem. Those with strong self-confidence are hard to influence if they think they are correct. Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded." While I don't think weak minded is the same as low EQ, it does seem that those with high EQ have an intangible trait that is powerful.
So the IQ versus EQ battle and debate continues. The fact is, for most people to achieve greatness, they need both a high IQ and a high EQ (as it is defined by Goleman). For the rest of us, we should strive for continuous improvement – in both areas of IQ and EQ. Then one day, years from now, we may realize that we have surrounded ourselves with people who are doing important, great things.