The study of emotional intelligence (EI) in the field of leadership, and in the organizational sciences in general, has often been characterized by controversy and criticism. But the study of EI has nonetheless persisted by developing new measures and models to address these concerns. In a prior letter exchange by Antonakis, Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2009), two author teams debated the role of EI in the leadership literature, but also set an agenda for research and reconciliation for the future. The present exchange revisits these arguments using evidence accumulated over the past decade. Specifically, the authors debate not only the evidence for the predictive power of EI for workplace outcomes, but also the validity of EI as a construct, the measurement of EI, and the appropriateness of analytical tests for establishing the value of EI. Although the author teams agree on the value of the study of emotions and the need for rigorous research in this area, they nonetheless propose alternative agendas and priorities for the future. Further, they conclude that the issues identified in this exchange are not unique to the study of EI; but should also serve to inform the study of other personality factors and leadership more broadly.

领导力领域和一般组织科学中对情商 (EI) 的研究常常充满争议和批评。但是，EI 的研究仍然坚持通过开发新的措施和模型来解决这些问题。在 Antonakis、Ashkanasy 和 Dasborough（2009 年）之前的一封信件往来中，两个作者团队就 EI 在领导力文献中的作用进行了辩论，同时也为未来的研究和协调制定了议程。本次交流使用过去十年积累的证据重新审视这些论点。具体而言，作者不仅讨论了 EI 对工作场所结果的预测能力的证据，还讨论了 EI 作为结构的有效性、EI 的测量以及分析测试对确定 EI 值的适当性。尽管作者团队同意情绪研究的价值以及在该领域进行严格研究的必要性，但他们仍然提出了未来的替代议程和优先事项。此外，他们得出结论，在这次交流中发现的问题并不是 EI 研究所独有的；但也应该有助于更广泛地研究其他人格因素和领导力。