How Should a Manager Discuss a Low EQ Result?

Before the meeting, decide whether the result is discussable

Before bringing a low EQ result into a one-to-one, identify what produced it and what the report actually claims. The same label can sit on very different measures, and a manager cannot responsibly explain a score whose questions, scoring, or intended meaning are unknown. Check who administered the assessment, whether the employee completed it for development or another purpose, what comparison the report uses, and whether the employee can review the same report. If any answer is missing, pause the interpretation and find the documentation or assessment owner first. The first useful question may be about the report, not the employee. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing frame validity around evidence for an interpretation and use of scores. In practical terms, evidence that supports discussing a result for one purpose does not automatically support using it for another. A measure intended to prompt reflection, for example, cannot simply be treated as evidence that someone is unfit for a role. The Standards are general guidance; they do not validate a particular EQ tool or decide how an organization should handle employment matters. They do give managers a boundary: match the proposed conversation to the meaning and purpose the instrument can support. Before the meeting, be able to say in plain language what the report measures, how it arrived at the result, what reference point—if any—it uses, and what the assessment is designed to help someone do. Confirm that the employee has access to the result. If you cannot explain those points without stretching the report, do not ask the employee to improve a presumed deficit. Clarify the assessment first; if a separate work concern needs attention, it can be addressed on its own evidence.

Sources: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

What kind of result is the employee looking at?

A low label can refer to unlike things: self-reported tendencies, performance on emotion-related tasks, or selected colleagues’ observations. Find the measure before explaining the result. The phrase ‘low EQ’ sounds like one finding, but these methods ask different questions and leave different kinds of evidence behind. Until the manager knows which report is in front of them, the label cannot say what the employee should change. A self-report asks someone to describe their own emotional habits or perceptions. Its result therefore reflects what that person notices and is willing or able to report about themselves. The article ‘The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion – A Psychophysiological Study’ distinguishes trait measures from ability measures and notes that self-reports are easy to use but may be affected by socially desirable responding. That is a reason to read the result as a view of perceived or typical tendencies, rather than as direct proof of how the employee performs on an emotion task. A low result may give the two people a useful subject for reflection. It does not identify, by itself, a moment when the employee failed to understand a colleague or regulate a response. An ability measure instead asks the person to respond to emotion-related tasks and scores those responses under that instrument’s rules. The same article describes ability emotional intelligence as typically measured with maximum-performance tests. The word ‘performance’ here refers to responses on the assessment, not a manager’s rating of job performance. Even a task-based result needs its own scoring explanation: the manager should check what the specific instrument treats as a higher or lower result and what that interpretation is intended to support. A task score cannot be translated automatically into a broad statement about someone’s character or conduct at work. Observer feedback is different again. In a 360 assessment, selected people report what they have noticed about the employee. The result summarizes their perceptions within the relationships and situations they know. The study’s discussion cautions that observer feedback depends substantially on which people are chosen to provide ratings; familiarity with one context does not make a rater an all-purpose judge of behavior. A lower rating can therefore tell the manager that these raters reported a concern, while leaving open how widely that perception applies and what behavior prompted it. This distinction changes the first sentence of the conversation. For a self-report, the manager might ask which description feels familiar or surprising. For observer feedback, they can name the relevant work relationships and ask what examples the employee recognizes. For an ability-task result, they should explain the test’s own interpretation before discussing any possible application. The report can guide a conversation, but none of these result types independently establishes a specific performance fact. The manager should describe what was measured and invite the employee’s account before attaching a trait label.

Sources: The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion – A Psychophysiological Study

Why ‘low EQ’ is too broad to be the feedback

A manager who says “your EQ is low” has turned a report label into a claim about the whole person. That leap is too large. A result may summarize a particular set of answers or observations; it does not, by itself, establish that someone lacks empathy, cannot manage conflict, or will behave poorly in a future meeting. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing say that each intended score interpretation and use should be clearly stated and supported by relevant evidence. The point is practical: evidence supporting one reading of a score does not automatically support a broader claim about character or workplace conduct. The instrument matters because “EQ result” can describe different kinds of evidence. In “The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion,” researchers distinguish task-based ability measures, self-reports of emotional tendencies, and ratings from people who observe someone at work. A self-report records how a person describes their own typical responses; the authors note that answers can be affected by socially desirable responding. An ability test scores responses to emotion-related tasks, whose scoring still depends on the test’s own criteria. Observer feedback reflects what selected raters noticed, and the paper cautions that the result depends on who was chosen to rate. These are different windows onto emotional functioning, not interchangeable proof of a single deficiency. That distinction changes the words a manager can responsibly use. If a report identifies a low self-reported tendency in one area, describe that result narrowly and invite the employee to say whether it reflects their experience. Do not translate it into “you lack empathy.” If a report summarizes observer feedback, name it as feedback from particular work relationships, rather than as an objective verdict. And if a task-based measure returns a low result, explain only what its documentation says that score means. That study examined review discussions involving 84 managers and 122 subordinates, measuring emotional expressions and self-reported feelings. It did not test whether a low score proves mishandling a specific interaction. A more careful opening might be: “This report shows a lower result on its measure of responding to others. What, if anything, feels familiar in situations where a colleague disagrees with you?” That phrasing identifies the result, leaves room for the employee’s account, and makes a later practice target observable. It does not ask the employee to accept a label. If there is a specific work incident to address, discuss the action and its effect on the work separately. A narrow result can start a useful conversation; a global label can make the employee defend an identity instead of examining a behavior.

Sources: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion – A Psychophysiological Study

Keep a development conversation out of the performance verdict

An EQ result can guide a private development discussion when the instrument supports that purpose. A documented performance concern needs its own examples, expectations, and work impact. Keeping these conversations distinct prevents an assessment label from standing in for evidence about a particular event. Suppose a handoff arrives without a required update and the next shift must repeat part of the work. The manager should not use a low score to claim the employee lacks empathy or responsibility. The report may suggest a topic worth exploring, but it does not establish what happened during the handoff. If records show what update was expected, when it was missing, and what work was delayed, those details can support a separate discussion of the handoff itself. This is an illustration, not a reported case. The Fair Work Ombudsman’s “Managing underperformance best practice guide” recommends describing specific examples, when they occurred, why they matter, and what change is required, while giving the employee an opportunity to respond. That structure makes a performance conversation answerable: the employee can clarify whether the expectation was understood, explain what affected the handoff, and discuss what would make the next one reliable. The manager should listen before deciding what caused the problem. The guide is written for Australian workplaces, so follow the organization’s own process for formal performance matters. A development conversation has a different purpose. The manager can share the report’s exact description, ask whether it feels familiar, and invite the employee to choose a behavior to explore. If the employee recognizes that updates are sometimes withheld when a project is under pressure, they might discuss a short check-in before handoff. That is a development hypothesis to try, not proof that the earlier incident happened for that reason. This separation also matters because feedback can backfire. The CIPD’s “Performance feedback: An evidence review,” published in 2022, says workplace feedback can support performance improvement but can also harm performance when delivered poorly. The review page summarizes that caution; it does not validate any EQ score or prescribe a script for discussing one. Tying a broad label to formal criticism can make the employee defend their character instead of understanding the expectation. Yet if a work concern is documented, avoiding it because the score is uncertain leaves the practical issue unresolved. A manager can mark the distinction plainly: “I’d like to discuss this result as a possible development prompt. Separately, on Tuesday’s handoff, the agreed update was missing and delayed the next shift. How did you see those two things?” This wording separates a report from an observed event, allows a response, and does not assume the score explains what happened. If the concern is formal, use the established process and explain that clearly rather than presenting it as casual coaching. The boundary is simple: discuss the EQ result as limited development information, and discuss documented work behavior on its own facts. A manager can address the missed handoff while leaving room for the employee to question what the assessment means.

Sources: Performance feedback: An evidence review; Managing underperformance best practice guide

How should the manager hear a mismatch?

Invite the employee to say what fits, what does not, and what relevant situation the assessment may have missed. A mismatch is information to examine, not proof that the employee is concealing something or that the report has no value.

A self-report records how someone sees or describes their usual emotional habits. That account can be shaped by self-perception and by how a person wants to present themselves. An ability measure instead scores responses to emotion-related tasks; its result depends on the instrument’s tasks and scoring approach. Observer feedback reflects what selected colleagues say they have noticed in particular settings. As “The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion” explains, self-reports can be affected by socially desirable responding, while 360 feedback depends in part on who was chosen to rate the person.

That distinction makes the employee’s account useful without making it decisive. If a self-report feels wrong to them, ask what they had in mind while answering and whether the wording matched their experience. If colleagues’ ratings conflict with the employee’s view, ask which working relationships and situations those ratings describe. A disagreement may point to different settings or expectations; it may also leave a behavior worth examining. The assessment alone cannot tell the manager which explanation applies.

For a concrete work concern, move from labels to a particular interaction. The Fair Work Ombudsman’s “Managing underperformance best practice guide” recommends giving specific examples, explaining their impact, allowing the employee to respond, and listening and asking questions to understand their view. It also identifies possible contributors such as unclear requirements, skill needs, job design, management style, and workplace or personal issues. That guidance concerns performance discussions, not EQ assessment, but it offers a practical way to hear context before deciding what the observed behavior means.

A manager might ask, “What was happening from your perspective in that handoff?” or “What would have helped you respond differently in that meeting?” These questions focus on the work and leave room for the employee to correct missing details. They do not require the employee to disclose private health or personal information. The manager need not settle every possible cause before deciding whether a specific action can be explored; a missed handoff, for example, can be discussed in terms of the agreed process and its effect, while the score remains open to question.

Listen before proposing a practice. If the employee identifies a relevant behavior they want to change, agree together on a small next step. If the account reveals that expectations, resources, roles, timing, or local working norms differed, clarify those conditions first. Fair Work advises open questions and employee input when working toward a solution. Applied to an informal development conversation, that supports inviting the employee to help choose a workable experiment, rather than asking them to defend a broad label. The aim is a clearer account of one interaction and a proportionate next move, not a confession or a verdict about character.

Sources: The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion – A Psychophysiological Study; Managing underperformance best practice guide

Set the purpose and power boundary at the start

Before bringing the result into the room, decide what kind of meeting this is. If the purpose is individual development, say so plainly: the conversation is about whether the report suggests a behavior the employee wants to explore, and what might help them practice it. If there is also a documented performance concern, name that as a separate matter and follow the organization’s process for it. A low score should not quietly turn a coaching invitation into an unstated warning. That distinction matters because the manager controls work, feedback, and often access to future opportunities. An employee may hear “we want to discuss your EQ result” as a judgment with consequences, even when the manager intends a supportive conversation. Avoid relying on a label such as “developmental” to settle the issue. Explain who selected the assessment, why the result is being raised now, whether the employee has the same report, who can see it, and what the manager plans to do with it. If the manager cannot answer those questions, pause and find out before asking the employee to interpret a score under pressure. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing say that test users should make the intended interpretation and use clear, and that evidence should support each intended use. Their guidance also says test takers generally should be told the intended use of scores, the extent of confidentiality, and whether and when they can access results. These are professional standards for testing, not a ruling about any particular EQ tool or a substitute for workplace policy. They support an opening: describe what the assessment was meant to inform, and do not imply that a development profile has already established a performance conclusion. For a formal performance discussion, the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Managing underperformance best practice guide recommends telling the employee the meeting’s reason in advance, preparing specific examples, meeting privately, describing the impact, and giving the employee an opportunity to respond. It is Australian workplace guidance, so managers elsewhere should follow their own organization’s procedures and applicable local rules. Its principle here is procedural clarity: the employee should know whether the manager is asking for reflection or presenting a work concern that requires a response. An opening can do both jobs without blending them: “I’d like to look at the assessment with you as a development prompt. It isn’t the basis for a performance decision. I’ll explain who can access it, then I’d like to hear what seems accurate or off target. Separately, we need to discuss the handoff issue and the examples I sent you; that follows our usual performance process.” Adjust the wording to match the facts and policy. Then pause. Let the employee ask about access, purpose, or process before interpreting the result together.

Sources: Managing underperformance best practice guide; Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

Resolve access and privacy before the score travels

Before inviting an employee to discuss a low EQ result, know who can see the report, where it is held, and what the organization intends to do with it. A private conversation is not private merely because it happens behind a closed door. The result may sit in an assessment platform, a learning system, an email thread, or a personnel file; each route can expose it to different people. If you cannot explain the route the information took and who has access, pause and ask the assessment owner or the appropriate internal contact. The employee should not have to begin by guessing whether a developmental conversation will become part of a formal employment record. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s overview, “New Guidelines for Technology-Based Assessment,” describes the International Test Commission and Association of Test Publishers guidelines released in November 2022. It says their scope includes digital score reporting and confidentiality, data storage and security, score precision and comparability, privacy, fairness, accessibility, and cross-cultural adaptation. Those topics matter here because a result can be affected by how it is delivered and reported, while its circulation can create consequences beyond the assessment itself. The overview summarizes the guideline chapters; it does not set an organization’s retention rule or determine which employee may lawfully access a particular record. Use it as a prompt to ask concrete questions, not as a substitute for local policy. Before the meeting, establish the purpose the employee was told, the people who can view the report, whether it will be stored or shared, and which rules govern that handling. Explain those facts plainly and let the employee see the same result you plan to discuss. Avoid forwarding an individual profile into a team conversation or personnel decision by default: wider circulation changes the audience and possible use without adding evidence about what happened in a particular work interaction. If the organization has a formal process for assessment records, follow it; if you do not know the process, ask before opening the report with the employee. Do not promise absolute confidentiality unless you can support that promise under the actual system and applicable rules. Once access and purpose are clear, the conversation can stay focused on the employee’s reflection and a possible development step. If they are not clear, resolving them is the next step, not asking the employee to defend a score whose future use remains uncertain. Before sharing any portion of a report, distinguish access needed to administer the assessment from access needed to coach the employee. A supervisor may need to understand a practical development goal without circulating every answer or the full profile. The SIOP overview identifies confidentiality in reporting and data management as separate parts of technology-based assessment, which makes this a useful operational distinction. The particular system may not allow a manager to change permissions, but that is a reason to involve its owner, not to send copies through informal channels.

Sources: New Guidelines for Technology-Based Assessment

Choose one practice the employee can test

If the report and conversation point to a useful development area, agree on one small behavior in a recurring work situation. Name the support the manager will provide and when both will review what happened. The goal is a practical test of a different response, not a second judgment about the employee’s emotional intelligence. Start with a moment the employee recognizes and can describe without relying on the score. If tense feedback tends to produce a quick rebuttal, a candidate practice might be to pause, identify the decision that needs to be made, and ask one clarifying question before answering. If a colleague’s concern gets lost in problem-solving, the employee might first summarize the concern and check that the summary is accurate. These are examples of observable actions, not validated test items or universal prescriptions. The employee should help choose a practice that fits the actual situation; the manager can help make it small enough to try and specific enough to notice. A useful agreement answers three questions: What will the employee try? What condition or support will make it possible? When will they discuss what happened? Support might mean allowing time to prepare for a difficult conversation, clarifying who owns a decision, or arranging a brief check-in afterward. A review date creates a chance to ask whether the action occurred and what got in its way. It should not be framed as a deadline for proving that the employee has changed a trait. There is evidence that workplace emotional competencies can develop, though it cannot promise a result for one person. The 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis “Training emotional competencies at the workplace” included 50 studies in its pre-to-post analysis and 27 controlled trials. In the controlled-trial analysis, the average difference between intervention and control groups was moderate (standardized mean difference 0.46). The authors also reported high heterogeneity and low methodological quality across the included studies. The interventions and measures varied, so that group average does not tell a manager whether this employee will change after one practice. It supports treating a skill as something that can be practiced, while keeping expectations proportionate. At the review, discuss the work interaction: Did the employee try the agreed action? What helped? What made it difficult? Did the exchange become clearer or easier to continue? The Fair Work Ombudsman’s “Managing underperformance best practice guide” recommends working with an employee on a solution, asking open questions, offering appropriate support, and setting a follow-up to review progress. That guidance concerns performance management, so it does not establish an EQ coaching protocol; its practical value here is the emphasis on shared action and follow-through. If a separate performance issue exists, evaluate it against the stated work expectation and evidence. Do not treat completion of the practice as proof of a high EQ score, or its absence as proof of a low one.

Sources: Training emotional competencies at the workplace; Managing underperformance best practice guide

When should the manager pause or change course?

Pause before interpreting the result if you cannot identify the instrument, what its score means, who can access it, or the purpose the tool was designed to serve. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing say each score interpretation needs evidence for its specific use. Evidence that supports a developmental reflection does not automatically support a claim about job performance, promotion, or an employee’s general capacity. If the report gives no clear explanation, ask the assessment owner for its manual and intended-use guidance before asking the employee to explain a low label. The case for caution should not become a reason to ignore all emotional-intelligence evidence. The meta-analysis The Relation Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis grouped studies into ability tests, self or peer reports based on a four-branch model, and mixed competency measures. Across those three streams, the authors reported corrected correlations with job performance ranging from 0.24 to 0.30; they also found that streams differed in their relations with cognitive ability and personality. This is evidence of average associations across a body of studies, not evidence that a particular employee’s score explains a specific incident. It does not tell a manager whether the current instrument measures the same construct, whether its low result is precise, or whether the score is suitable for an employment decision. The useful response is neither to dismiss the field nor to treat a broad association as a verdict about one person. Pause or narrow the assessment discussion when its basic conditions are doubtful. If the employee took a self-report in a language they do not use comfortably, for example, the responses may not support the interpretation the manager has in mind. Accessibility matters too: the Standards note that barriers in test content or format can affect whether scores have comparable meaning for people in the intended group. For observer feedback, ask who selected the raters and what settings they observed. The study The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion notes that 360 feedback depends on the people chosen to rate someone; its authors caution that rater choice can skew the picture and recommend combining methods where possible. A low observer rating from a narrow or unrepresentative set of colleagues should prompt questions about coverage and context, not a stronger label. Change course immediately if someone proposes using an unclear EQ result to rank employees, make a hiring or promotion decision, diagnose a condition, or establish a performance verdict. Those are distinct, consequential uses and require their own appropriate basis and process. If there is a concrete work concern, address it without waiting for an EQ score to become persuasive. Fair Work Ombudsman’s Managing Underperformance Best Practice Guide advises managers to describe the problem with specific examples, explain its impact, give the employee an opportunity to respond, and listen to their account. Those steps support a separate conversation about observable conduct or outcomes. A missed handoff, for instance, can be discussed through the agreed deadline, what was delivered, and what work was affected; the manager need not call it low empathy or treat an assessment as proof. The practical fork is simple: clarify the measure before discussing what its score says, and handle documented work concerns through the organization’s established performance process. If the employee disputes the score, hear the objection and check whether the instrument, wording, access, or raters could change its meaning. That disagreement does not erase independent evidence of a work problem. Conversely, a real work problem does not make a weak or misapplied EQ result more valid. Formal steps depend on local policy and applicable rules, so use the organization’s established guidance for those decisions. Keep the two records and conversations distinct, and let each claim rest on evidence that actually bears on it.

Sources: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion – A Psychophysiological Study; Managing underperformance best practice guide; The Relation Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Close with a bounded next step

Close the conversation by naming one behavior the employee is willing to try, one practical support the manager will provide, and a date to review the experience. After a difficult feedback exchange, for example, the employee might summarize the concern before answering; the manager might share the agenda in advance. These are candidate actions, not a new test of emotional ability. At the review, ask what happened, what helped, and what made the action harder. Keep the discussion on the interaction and agreed support rather than deciding whether the employee has become more emotionally intelligent. Handle any separate performance concern through its established process and evidence.

An assessment can offer a private starting point for the employee's reflection, if they want one. EQ Test's 32-item Emotional Skills Profile covers recognition, understanding, regulation, and responding to others. It is an educational reflection tool without validated norms, not a hiring or performance score. A result may help someone notice habits to examine; the next step still comes from a behavior they choose to practice. Interested individuals can explore the profile at /assessment. Keep the invitation optional. The manager's responsibility is to clarify the conversation's purpose, provide the agreed support, and return on the date both people set. They can then discuss one observed interaction without turning the review into another EQ verdict.

Sources: Emotional Skills Profile

Questions readers ask