There has been much confusion and controversy concerning the concept of emotional intelligence (EI). Three issues have been particularly bothersome. The first concerns the many conflicting definitions and models of EI. To address this issue, I propose that we distinguish between definitions and models and then adopt a single definition on which the major theorists already seem to agree. I further propose that we more clearly distinguish between EI and the related concept of emotional and social competence (ESC). The second issue that has generated concern is the question of how valid existing measures are. After reviewing the research on the psychometric properties of several popular tests, I conclude that although there is some support for many of them, they all have inherent limitations. We need to rely more on alternative measurement strategies that have been available for some time and also develop new measures that are more sensitive to context. The third area of contention concerns the significance of EI for outcomes such as job performance or leadership effectiveness. Recent research, not available to earlier critics, suggests that EI is positively associated with performance. However, certain ESCs are likely to be stronger predictors of performance than EI in many situations. Also, EI is likely to be more important in certain kinds of situations, such as those involving social interaction or significant levels of stress. Context makes a difference.

The commentaries on my target article expand on it in many useful and enlightening ways, and some provide a glimpse at important new research. The commentaries also point to a few issues raised in the original article that require clarification or elaboration. In this response, I begin by recalling the “big idea” that initially led to interest in emotional intelligence (EI) as a concept, which is that success in life and work depends on more than just the basic cognitive abilities measured by IQ tests. I then clarify what I mean by emotional and social competence (ESC): It is not a single, unitary psychological construct but rather a very broad label for a large set of constructs. After considering whether we really need the ESC concept, I discuss whether the single, comprehensive definition of EI that I proposed in the target article is the best one in light of alternatives suggested in some of the commentaries. Next, I return to the issue of measurement and note new ideas and suggestions that emerge in the commentaries. I conclude by considering the question of how much EI or ESC adds conceptually or predictively to IQ or personality.

In recent decades, the Cleary (1968) approach for testing for differences in regression lines among demographic groups has been codified as a central approach to evaluate a test for bias. However, this approach is fraught with numerous shortcomings, a preponderance of implicit assumptions, and outcomes that are not sufficient to conclude that there is a problem with a test. We believe these shortcomings are poorly understood by many industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists, that this method for evaluating test bias is overrelied on by our profession, and that it is interpreted improperly by those wishing to evaluate tests for bias in applied settings. Moreover, eliminating differential prediction may be impossible in some cases, undesirable in others, and places an undue burden on organizational researchers.