The past decade brought many new ideas to the forefront of talent management, including the advice in Jim Collins’ book Good to Great, the framework of strengths-based leadership and the construct of emotional intelligence. These ideas’ proponents argue that their concepts are backed by thorough research. But when we test their claims, we find the science is either inconclusive, controversial or contradicts their assertions.

Let’s start with Good to Great — one of the most popular management books in history. Collins’ premise is that his research has discovered a six-step process that allows good companies to become great companies. His advice has inspired companies worldwide to follow steps such as getting the right people on the bus and discovering their Hedgehog Concept.
However, only one of the 11 companies he cites as great has delivered above-market returns since the book was published in 2001. This suggests these six steps can’t sustain greatness even if they can create it. Some scientists also argue that firms included in his original definition of great only met those standards when their performance was measured in a favorable way.

The fact that Collins’ ideas can’t be guaranteed to work doesn’t mean they lack value. In fact, many are consistent with the advice offered by other researchers and consultants. Still, talent managers should serve as the voice of reason when executives decide to uncritically follow Good to Great strategies when the jury’s still out on their effectiveness.

Emotional intelligence is another attractive concept with inconclusive science. Popularized by Daniel Goleman in Emotional Intelligence, the theory proposes that emotional intelligence (EI) is a unique construct — different from general intelligence (IQ) or personality. One of its definitions is that EI measures one’s ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions.

The fact that EI has multiple definitions hints at the larger controversy. Since its introduction, personality psychologists have hotly debated its very existence. Their criticisms include that there’s no agreed-upon definition for EI or consistent way to measure it. They also argue there’s no proof EI is actually different from IQ or personality. Further complicating the debate is the question of whether EI, if it exists, is a trait — personality based — or a state — a changeable behavior.