Emotional Intelligence Is Learnable: Even When It’s Uncomfortable

In a recent workshop on emotions in the workplace, culture, climate, and engagement I presented, a familiar challenge surfaced.

We were talking about emotional intelligence (EQ) as a learnable skill when someone asked: “But what about neurodivergent people?”

It’s an important question, and one that often sits alongside another unspoken assumption: that emotional intelligence is something you either naturally have or you don’t.

The reality is more nuanced than that.

Emotions are universal. EQ is not instinctive for everyone.

Emotions are part of human biology. They are wired into our survival system. You cannot opt out of having emotions, regardless of personality, role, or neurotype.

What does differ is:

  • how emotional information is processed

  • how it’s interpreted

  • how it’s expressed

  • how consciously it’s managed

Emotional intelligence isn’t about being warm, expressive, or people-oriented by nature. It’s about how responsibly someone handles the emotional impact they have on others, especially in positions of influence.

That’s why EQ can be learned, but not always comfortably.

Neurodivergence doesn’t determine EQ, capacity and willingness do

Neurodivergent people experience emotions in the same fundamental way all humans do, emotions are biological, not optional. What differs is how emotional information is processed, interpreted, and expressed.

Just as importantly, motivation and relational focus vary widely:

  • some people care deeply about impact

  • some are indifferent

  • some actively avoid people-facing responsibilities

That variation exists across all neurotypes.

Where capacity and willingness are present, emotional intelligence skills can be learned, often through explicit strategies, structure, and repetition rather than instinct or intuition.

EQ in practice looks a lot less glamorous than we think

In workplaces, emotional intelligence often shows up in unglamorous ways.

For example, it’s not uncommon to see a technically strong individual promoted into a leadership role because:

  • they’ve been there the longest

  • they’re reliable

  • they’re excellent at the task itself

What’s less often asked is: Are they actually best placed to lead people?

Imagine a manager who recognises that people leadership doesn’t come naturally to them. They’re uncomfortable with informal conversations, emotional cues, and spontaneous connection, but they’re responsible for a team.

Rather than relying on instinct, they put structure in place:

  • scheduled check-ins

  • visible presence

  • simple routines that force consistency

These actions don’t feel natural or enjoyable. But they improve visibility, trust, and clarity for the team.

That is emotional intelligence in action. Not charm, not personality but responsibility and awareness.

The hidden risk of “default promotion”

Another theme that emerged strongly in the workshop was this: people are often promoted by default, not by design.

Length of service, loyalty, or technical competence quietly become the criteria, without a clear conversation about what leadership actually requires.

When individuals with low EQ skill (not low worth) are promoted into people leadership without support, organisations often see:

  • low morale

  • increased grievances

  • disengagement

  • higher staff turnover

Not because the person is bad, but because the role doesn’t fit.

Which raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:

What is the purpose of promotion?

Is it:

  • financial recognition?

  • status?

  • progression?

  • increased responsibility for others?

Because those don’t all need to come bundled together.

Rethinking progression without punishing honesty

If promotion is the only way to reward people financially or recognise contribution, organisations quietly force individuals into roles they may not be suited for.

That helps no one.

Other options exist:

  • specialist career paths

  • financial progression without people management

  • advisory or mentoring roles

  • project leadership without line management

When people are given choices, rather than default ladders, emotional intelligence becomes a supported capability, not a moral test.

Willingness matters more than natural ability

Across all roles and neurotypes, one factor consistently predicts whether EQ improves:

Willingness to take responsibility for impact, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Some people learn EQ intuitively. Others learn it consciously. Some feel their way there. Others think their way there.

All are valid.

What matters is not how naturally someone relates, but whether they are willing to engage with the relational responsibility their role carries.

What this means for culture and engagement

Healthy culture isn’t built by promoting the “nicest” people or expecting everyone to become emotionally fluent.

It’s built by asking better questions:

  • Who is best placed to lead people, and who isn’t?

  • What support does this role actually require?

  • How do we reward contribution without forcing misalignment?

  • Are we designing roles around humans, or humans around roles?

Emotional intelligence isn’t about sameness. It’s about intentional behaviour, supported by structure, within someone’s capacity.

And when organisations get that right, engagement stops being accidental, and culture stops being fragile.

Perhaps the real question is not whether emotional intelligence can be learned.

It is this:

Are we willing to design progression, leadership, and support in a way that allows people to succeed without becoming someone they are not?

I’m curious, what do you think?

More from the blog