#Workplacepsychology

A leading organizational psychology expert challenges the idea that emotional intelligence equals always being nice. New research reframes EI as a flexible skill that depends on context, suggesting that overemphasis on perpetual pleasantness can hinder authentic communication, effective leadership, and well-being in Thai workplaces and beyond.

In Thailand, the belief that kindness means never showing frustration has shaped workplaces, schools, and families for years. While social harmony is valued, this mindset can mask problems, discourage constructive feedback, and suppress healthy disagreement. Professionals in Thai institutions report rising stress as emotions are kept under wraps, conflicts accumulate, and genuine needs go unaddressed.

Groundbreaking psychological research by organizational expert Adam Grant challenges the fundamental misconception that emotional intelligence equals perpetual niceness, revealing how this widespread belief actually diminishes genuine emotional competence while undermining both personal and professional relationships throughout Thai society. Harvard University studies demonstrate that equating emotional intelligence with constant pleasantness creates psychological barriers that prevent authentic communication, healthy conflict resolution, and effective leadership development—particularly problematic within Thai cultural contexts where social harmony often masks deeper relationship issues.

A recent discussion reignited by organizational psychologist and bestselling author Adam Grant has called into question a widely held belief about emotional intelligence: that being emotionally intelligent is synonymous with being nice. According to Grant—and backed by new research from Harvard—the myth that equates emotional intelligence with niceness is not only unfounded but may actually diminish individuals’ true emotional intelligence and, by extension, their effectiveness in both personal and professional relationships (Inc.com).

A recent study from San Francisco State University provides a significant breakthrough for employers and organizations seeking to identify narcissistic tendencies in job candidates. By carefully crafting and analyzing responses to just three targeted interview questions, the researchers found a remarkably efficient method to spot potentially disruptive personalities—offering Thai employers, educators, and even community leaders a practical new tool for building healthier teams and workplaces (Psychology Today).

This research is especially relevant to Thailand, where the concept of “face” and harmonious group interaction play a central role in organizational culture. Narcissistic grandiosity—characterized by a focus on personal gain, dominance in group settings, and a lack of empathy—threatens not only productivity but also the emotional well-being of colleagues. In a country where community, respect, and consensus are highly valued, early identification of such traits can prevent workplace conflict and staff turnover, which are persistent challenges in both Thai corporate and government offices.

A recent study from San Francisco State University offers a practical tool for employers and organizations seeking to identify narcissistic traits in candidates. By analyzing responses to three carefully chosen interview questions, researchers found a notably efficient way to flag potentially disruptive personalities. This approach could help Thai employers, educators, and community leaders build healthier teams and workplaces.

In Thailand, where the concept of face and harmonious group interaction play a central role in organizational culture, narcissistic grandiosity—defined by self-centeredism, dominance, and a lack of empathy—poses risks to both productivity and colleagues’ well-being. Early identification of such traits can help prevent workplace conflict and staff turnover, a persistent challenge in both corporate and government settings in Thailand.