How to Use an EQ Result to Choose One Skill to Practice

A low result is a lead, not an assignment

A report puts one emotional-intelligence area at the bottom, and the obvious response is to work on it first. That can be a useful starting point, but the lowest result does not name a practice by itself. To choose one skill, use the result to ask a narrower question: what response might be worth changing in a situation that matters to me? Then look for evidence in an actual, recurring interaction. A score is a lead to investigate, not a verdict about your character or a ready-made instruction.

The reason is simple: an EQ result depends on what the assessment asked you to do. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s “Emotional Intelligence Tests” guidance distinguishes ability tests, which ask people to solve emotion-related problems, from self-report questionnaires about self-image or perceived competence. The distinction matters even when your only aim is personal development. A low self-report area may tell you that you see a habit as difficult or inconsistent; it does not establish that you lack the maximum ability to handle every situation involving that skill. A result from a performance task, meanwhile, describes responses to that task’s structured problems. It may suggest a topic to explore, but does not automatically identify what to practice in a meeting tomorrow.

The review “The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners” likewise separates self-reported typical behavior from performance on ability tasks, and argues that measures should be chosen with their purpose in view. Its review of selected instruments is not a rule for interpreting every score. It does, however, make a direct shortcut hard to defend: treating every assessment’s lowest area as the same kind of deficit. Before acting, check the report’s description of its method and what its result is intended to represent.

Then hold the low area lightly and test it against experience. Can you name a recurring exchange where the result might connect to something you do, such as replying before you understand a concern or staying silent when a boundary needs stating? Those are candidate behaviors, not proof that the score explains the exchange. If no specific situation comes to mind, the score has raised a question without answering it; notice a clearer example before choosing a practice. If a repeated, consequential moment does fit, the result can help you decide what to examine. The useful first step is not to improve several dimensions at once, but to find one response you can actually try to change.

Sources: Emotional Intelligence Tests; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners

What did the result actually measure?

Before acting on a low subscore, find out how the assessment produced it. A self-report asks you to describe your usual behavior or your sense of what you can do. An ability test asks you to solve structured problems involving emotion,. A mixed measure may combine emotional competencies with social skills or other self-described tendencies; some versions also include ratings from colleagues or supervisors. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s “Emotional Intelligence Tests” page makes this distinction directly: questionnaires can serve when the aim is to understand self-perceived competence, while ability questions are designed to assess answers to emotional problems. The distinction matters here because a low self-report area is first evidence about how you see your typical behavior, not proof that you lack the maximum ability to respond well.

The 2019 critical review “The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence” uses trait EI for self-report measures of typical behavior and self-rated ability, and ability EI for performance tasks. It also describes mixed approaches, often questionnaires that cover a broader set of traits, skills, and competencies; some use 360-degree ratings, meaning reports from several people around the respondent. A self-report may point toward a habit you believe you have, while an ability task samples how you handle a particular set of emotion problems under test conditions. An observer report adds other people’s impressions in the situations where they see you. So inspect the report’s stated method and intended purpose before translating its lowest area into a practice assignment. If those details are missing, keep the score provisional and look for a concrete work situation that could clarify it.

A three-study paper, “Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning,” illustrates why the two kinds of result should not be collapsed. In its first study, the researchers found that self-ratings and performance scores on the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test were not strongly correlated. The later studies examined links with social competence, and those associations differed by measure and study; some reported findings were specific to gender. It does show that believing you handle emotions well and performing well on structured emotion problems are distinct signals. If a self-report flags regulation, ask which usual response it describes and whether that response appears in a recurring exchange. If a performance task flags difficulty understanding an emotion problem, treat that as a topic to explore; the test result alone does not identify which workplace behavior to change. Give the result weight according to its method, then let relevant experience help determine the next question.

Sources: Emotional Intelligence Tests; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence

Which work situation makes the result matter?

A low result becomes useful when it helps explain a recurring moment you want to handle differently. Look back at a recent interaction that mattered: feedback that became tense, a handoff where an important need stayed unstated, or a disagreement that ended without a next step. Describe what happened before naming the missing skill. A score can suggest where to look; the scene shows whether that suggestion fits your working life. The distinction matters because an assessment summarizes responses across its questions, while a work exchange unfolds in a particular setting. Needs, time pressure, and authority can shape what happened. In its guidance on Emotional Intelligence Tests, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management distinguishes ability questions about emotional problems from self-report questionnaires about a person’s self-perceived competence. Neither format describes every demand in a particular meeting or handoff. Consider this illustrative exchange, not a reported case: during a project review, a colleague says a recommendation leaves a client concern unanswered. The person presenting it replies quickly that the concern was already covered. The discussion moves on, but the team leaves without deciding who will check the client’s requirement. The observable sequence is simple: a challenge is raised, a quick defense follows, and the decision remains unresolved. “Poor regulation” is one possible interpretation, but it is not yet the only useful one. Inspect the conditions around that sequence. Perhaps the requirement was unclear, time was short, or the presenter had been told to defend an approved decision. Those conditions do not erase the quick reply, but they change what might help. If the request was unclear, asking which client concern remains unanswered may be the useful behavior. If the person understood the concern but reacted before considering it, pausing to restate the question could be a more relevant practice. If the deadline made discussion impossible, a follow-up decision may matter more than a different emotional response in the room. The measurement review, “The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners,” describes ability, trait, and mixed approaches as related but distinct. A self-report signal about a perceived habit can prompt the question, “Do I recognize this pattern in situations I care about?” It cannot settle what caused a specific exchange. For a result from another method, first ask what the tasks or ratings actually captured, then look for a relevant opportunity to apply that interpretation. This is an inference from the difference between measure and setting, not proof that a scene confirms a test result. Look for recurrence. If similar exchanges keep ending before anyone clarifies the concern, the pattern may be worth exploring. Then separate what you did from what followed: whether you interrupted, asked a question, named a boundary, or returned to repair is observable; whether the other person felt understood may require their account. Unclear roles, workload, or authority can also contribute. The result earns weight when its signal and a consequential situation point toward a behavior you can actually try. When they do not meet, keep the score as a question and gather a clearer example before selecting a practice.

Sources: Emotional Intelligence Tests; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners

What behavior sits inside the difficult moment?

A useful practice target sits at a point in an exchange where a different response could help. “Improve empathy” is too broad to rehearse. “Ask what the other person needs before proposing a fix” names an action someone could notice. The result may point toward a relevant area, but the work situation shows what that area might mean in practice. The terms used in EQ reports can sound like separate boxes. In a real conversation they are better treated as lenses on a sequence. Recognition means noticing or naming a feeling. Understanding means considering what it may signal. Regulation means influencing its course or expression. Responding includes what a person does with another’s perspective, the boundary they need to state, and the conversation that follows. This is a practical way to sort possible actions, not a required stage model that every interaction must follow. The distinction matters because similar outcomes can begin at different points. Suppose a colleague challenges a proposal and the reply comes out sharp. If irritation was noticed only afterward, the first practice might be naming the feeling before answering. If the irritation was clear but the person interrupted anyway, noticing is already present; a short pause or a question that checks the challenge may be more relevant. “I have a reaction” and “I can choose what to do next” describe different moments, even if a report places both under a broad regulation label. A quiet exchange can hide a different need: someone may stay calm yet avoid stating a necessary boundary. A steadier tone would miss the problem; the action may be to say what can be done and what must wait. Someone who states a limit clearly but overlooks a colleague’s concern may need to check what the other person means before negotiating. Empathy does not require agreement or giving up a limit. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s “Emotional Intelligence Tests” distinguishes emotional problem-solving tasks from self-reports of perceived competence. O’Connor and colleagues’ “The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners” also describes approaches measuring typical self-reported behavior and maximal performance. Neither offers a universal map from score label to workplace exercise. Treating a result as a prompt and inspecting where an action could change the exchange is an editorial inference. Describe what happened just before the difficult point, what you noticed, what you did, and what followed. Then identify the smallest response within your control that addresses the snag: asking one clarifying question, pausing before replying, making a request explicit, or returning to acknowledge an interruption. Choose an action you can recognize yourself attempting. “Be better at understanding people” offers no clear practice moment; “ask before assuming why the deadline changed” does. A result can help name what to examine, but the exchange determines whether a skill label fits. Narrowing the target this way gives practice a visible beginning: a cue, a chosen response, and a moment afterward when you can tell whether you tried it.

Sources: Emotional Intelligence Tests; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners

Which candidate deserves the first practice?

Compare candidates by asking four questions: does the result measure something relevant to the behavior, does the situation recur, does the interaction matter, and can you change your next response? The strongest first practice is usually the one with the clearest combined case, even if its score is not the lowest. These questions are a way to make a choice, not a validated formula or another EQ score. “Low” can mean different things. The 2019 review, “The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners,” distinguishes ability tests from self-report questionnaires: the first sample performance on emotion-related tasks, while the second asks about typical behavior or self-rated ability. A low self-report area is a prompt to examine a perceived habit; it does not establish how you will respond in a particular moment. A performance task samples structured emotional problem-solving, not every conversation at work. Imagine two possible targets after reading a report. One is a very low “understanding emotions” result, but you cannot identify a recurring work situation where interpreting emotion causes difficulty. The other is a somewhat higher “responding to others” result, and you often leave important feedback conversations without clarifying what the other person needs. The labels here are illustrative, not findings from a particular assessment. If the second situation matters to you and you can change how you respond, it offers a more concrete first experiment: ask one clarifying question before moving to solutions. Without an example, the first result is a weaker practice assignment. The case for checking self-perception against behavior appears in a specific study, not as a universal rule about every assessment. In “Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence,” three studies compared self-ratings with performance scores from the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In Study 1, the self-ratings and MSCEIT scores were not strongly correlated. In the later studies, links with social competence differed by measure and were gender-specific. The findings caution against treating the measures as interchangeable; they do not select a workplace practice for an individual. There is a reasonable countercase to waiting for a conspicuous recurring problem. If an ability test identifies a specific weakness in solving emotion-related problems, and that task resembles situations that matter in your ordinary role, the result can justify a low-risk practice before you have noticed repeated consequences. For instance, you might rehearse pausing to identify what information an emotion could signal before answering a routine disagreement. Treat the result as a reason to investigate, then try an observable response you control in an actual opportunity. A useful choice can be stated plainly: “I will practice [one response] when [a recognizable situation occurs], because [the report signal and this repeated interaction both point here].” If you cannot fill in the situation, or the report’s method is unclear, collect a better example first. If several candidates fit, start with the one that recurs, has a consequence you care about, and leaves room for a different response. That reasoning gives the result weight without letting the bottom line choose your behavior for you.

Sources: The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence

How can a practice survive the moment when it is needed?

“Be more regulated in meetings” sounds like a practice goal, but it leaves two decisions for the hardest moment: when to act and what to do. Under pressure, a broad intention can be crowded out by the conversation. A cue-linked plan makes those decisions beforehand. In “Implementation Intentions,” Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran describe an if-then plan as a link between a recognizable situation and a chosen response: if the situation occurs, then I will take that action. The cue can be another person’s action or an internal signal, such as a rise in irritation. The plan should fit the obstacle that gets in the way. If feedback arrives in a meeting and the first response is to defend the work, a practical plan might be: “If a colleague challenges my recommendation, I will write down the question and answer it before defending my proposal.” This does not require agreement with the criticism. It creates a brief step to identify what was asked before choosing a reply. If the obstacle is forgetting to pause, the cue could be a question directed at them. If the obstacle is reluctance to hear the answer, the response might be to ask one clarifying question before explaining their reasoning. A different cue calls for a different response. When drafting a tense reply, for instance, the plan might be: “If I notice that I am typing faster or adding a sharp sentence, I will save the draft and reread it after a short pause.” The action is within the writer’s control; the other person’s reaction is not. A useful plan is specific enough to recognize and realistic enough to attempt. “If the discussion gets difficult, I will communicate better” is too vague: it does not identify which moment counts or what response to try. Gollwitzer and Sheeran’s review summarizes goal-pursuit research, not trials of EQ assessments or workplace emotional-skill exercises. Across 94 studies included in a meta-analysis discussed in the review, forming implementation intentions had a medium-to-large average effect on goal attainment (d = .65). The review also reports stronger effects when self-regulatory problems obstruct goal striving and when the person has a strong, activated goal intention. Those findings support the planning mechanism, not a promise that a particular plan will improve a conversation or change an EQ result. That distinction matters when a plan fails. Missing the cue may mean it was poorly chosen or hard to notice; attempting the response without the hoped-for outcome may reflect the other person’s needs, timing, or conditions beyond the individual’s control. Neither event alone establishes an ability limit. After an opportunity, note whether the cue appeared, whether the response was attempted, and what observable next step followed. If the cue never comes up, choose one that occurs in a real situation. If the response proves impractical, make it smaller. The purpose is to give one selected behavior a clear starting point, then learn from actual attempts.

Sources: Implementation Intentions

How will you know whether the practice is useful?

A practice is useful first when it becomes an action you can identify, rather than an intention you endorse. Across several real opportunities, note whether the situation meant to cue the behavior occurred, whether you attempted the response, and what followed in the exchange. Keep those observations separate. “I paused before answering the criticism” records an attempt. “The meeting became easier” describes an outcome that may also depend on the other person, authority, time pressure, or whether the criticism was clear. A good outcome does not prove that your practice caused it; a difficult outcome does not erase an attempt you made.

This distinction makes review less punishing and more informative. If the cue rarely appears, the behavior may be sensible but hard to evaluate in that setting. If the cue appears and you repeatedly forget the response, make the cue more noticeable or the action smaller. If you attempt the response but the conversation still stalls, inspect what happened next before deciding the skill failed. Perhaps the other person did not answer a clarifying question, or the decision was outside your authority. The purpose is to learn what you can do in the exchange, not to take responsibility for every condition around it.

A short private note after a relevant interaction is usually enough: situation; cue; response attempted; what the other person did next; one thing to keep or change. There is no universal number of conversations after which a person should declare success. Look for a pattern across opportunities that arose, and record missed attempts as well as completed ones. If you want another perspective, ask someone you trust for feedback about one observable behavior, in a conversation where they can answer freely. Do not ask colleagues to monitor you without their agreement; that changes a learning exercise into something resembling appraisal.

There is reason to take practice seriously, with care about what the evidence can say. “Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis” combined 50 studies in a pre-and-post analysis and 27 controlled trials involving workplace interventions. The authors reported moderate average changes that persisted beyond three months, while also finding substantial variation among studies and low methodological quality. The review supports the possibility that emotional competencies can develop through workplace training; it does not identify the right exercise for one person or show that a particular behavior will improve performance or relationships. It pools varied interventions and measures, so its average cannot certify progress in an individual case.

Judge your practice on two tracks: did you make the intended response when its cue appeared, and what observable consequence followed? Keep the behavior if it remains relevant and feasible; revise the cue or response when you cannot carry it out; choose another candidate if the situation does not recur or the behavior misses what matters. This is a way to learn from experience, not a substitute EQ score. The useful result may be modest: you noticed the moment sooner, asked one question, or returned to a conversation. Whether that becomes a lasting change needs more evidence than a single good exchange.

Sources: Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis; Implementation Intentions

Choose the next real opportunity

Before the next opportunity, write one sentence that joins the report to a real moment: “My result raised a question about [signal]; when [recurring situation] happens and I notice [cue], I will [specific response].” A self-report about typical behavior calls for a different interpretation from a performance task; either way, the sentence should end in an action you can observe yourself attempting. If you cannot name a recurring situation that fits the signal, gather a clearer example rather than choosing the lowest area by default.

Afterward, note whether the cue appeared, whether you tried the response, and what happened next. Keep the attempt separate from the result: another person’s reaction and workplace conditions may shape the exchange too. This record is for learning, not a new score or proof that one conversation changed a skill. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis, “Emotional intelligence training in the workplace,” found average improvements across varied training studies, while reporting substantial variation and low methodological quality. That supports trying a focused practice with measured expectations; it cannot identify your right behavior or promise an outcome. The private 32-item Emotional Skills Profile at /assessment offers a structured reflection starting point, keeping recent-behavior summaries distinct from scenario judgments. Use the next real moment to try your response, then decide whether it deserves another practice.

Sources: Training emotional competencies at the workplace: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Questions readers ask