Does the EPeDeP Trial Prove EQ Training Raises Productivity?

What did EPeDeP actually test?

A productivity gain after training can mean either that the program helped workers do their jobs more efficiently or that a result from one factory is being asked to carry too much weight. EPeDeP supports the first interpretation in a narrow setting. Its design cannot settle the second.

The North Macedonian program took place at Comfy Angel, a textile factory in Prilep. From 350 eligible production workers, 54 were selected for treatment after production units were randomly assigned; workers in untreated units and untreated workers in selected units formed comparison groups. The 40 hours of instruction ran across 12 weeks, from September to December 2024. Modules covered time and stress management, communication, task execution, problem-solving, decision-making, leadership and teamwork. Emotional intelligence was part of that wider skills package, not the only skill taught. The report’s flow diagram lists 51 workers in the treatment group, so the assignment count and the number represented in the study figure should not be treated as interchangeable.

The outcome was factory-recorded efficiency: each worker’s output compared with a production target. The authors report a 1.13% difference during training and about 0.4% in January and February 2025, after the course. These are modest effects, but the randomized design and administrative records make the result more informative than participants simply saying they felt more productive. The two-month post-course window is still short, and the sample came from one employer and one production system.

The evidence therefore favors a real, local effect of the full package. It does not reveal which module mattered. Better communication could help a worker report a machine problem or coordinate a handoff; planning or task execution could also affect the same efficiency measure. That explanation is plausible, but the trial did not separate those pathways.

Sources: Soft Skills, Hard Results: The Productivity Impact of On-The-Job Soft Skills Training, with Focus on Women

Does related evidence travel beyond textiles?

A randomized trial of P.A.C.E., a different soft-skills program for female garment workers in five factories in Bengaluru, India, selected 1,087 workers for training from 2,703 lottery participants and reported estimated productivity gains of 13.5%. The authors also found larger gains on joint operations and increased productivity among untreated coworkers on treated lines, a pattern consistent with teamwork and collaboration contributing to output. Their abstract reports no wage or retention effect despite productivity gains.

This strengthens the case that broad interpersonal and self-management skills can matter in team-based production. It is not a direct replication of EPeDeP: the country, employers, program, participants and follow-up differ. Both trials concern garment or textile production, where workers coordinate around shared processes. Together they make transfer to a similar production setting more plausible than transfer to, say, an independent analyst’s workday. That last comparison is an inference from the settings studied, not a measured contrast.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis broadens the picture in another way. Across 50 pre-post studies, and a separate analysis of 27 controlled studies, it found moderate average improvements in measured emotional competencies that persisted more than three months. The studies included teachers, health professionals, managers and other workers. The authors also report high heterogeneity and low methodological quality, and call for stronger trials. Crucially, its pooled outcomes were emotional competencies, not worker productivity. A change in empathy, emotional intelligence or emotion regulation measures is relevant to skills development; it cannot stand in for evidence that output increased.

So the evidence beyond EPeDeP’s factory is encouraging but indirect. The garment-worker trial supports productivity effects for another broad program in a related industry. The review supports the trainability of emotional competencies across professional groups. Neither shows that an EQ-only course raises productivity across industries. Longer studies that test different jobs and track both observable behavior and work output could change that conclusion.

Sources: Returns to On-the-Job Soft Skills Training; Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis; Returns to On-the-Job Soft Skills Training (author working paper)

What can a reader reasonably conclude at work?

Treat EPeDeP as promising evidence for a specific, multi-skill intervention in a specific factory. The randomized result is stronger than a before-and-after story without a comparison group, and the smaller post-course difference suggests the measured effect did not vanish immediately. Its brief follow-up, small treatment group and bundled curriculum leave open how long the change lasts, which skills produced it, and whether another workplace would see the same result.

For an individual, the practical lesson is to name the behavior they want to change before asking whether an EQ course will raise productivity. After tense feedback, for example, someone might practice asking for one concrete example before defending their work, then ask whether that changed the next exchange. That is a development experiment, not a technique tested by EPeDeP, and the relevant outcome is observable behavior rather than an assumed productivity gain.

The 32-item Emotional Skills Profile can support private reflection on recent habits and judgments about authored scenarios, helping someone choose a behavior to notice or practice. It is an educational reflection tool without validated norms or established ability-test validity; EPeDeP did not use it or test whether its results predict output. The verdict is therefore clear: the trial gives a reason to take practical skills development seriously, not a portable productivity promise. To explore a personal practice focus, use the [Emotional Skills Profile](/assessment).

Sources: Soft Skills, Hard Results: The Productivity Impact of On-The-Job Soft Skills Training, with Focus on Women; Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Questions readers ask