How to Improve Emotional Intelligence
The question isn’t whether emotional intelligence can be developed. It’s whether your approach actually changes behaviour. What the peer-reviewed research says works—and why most training fails.
The question isn’t whether emotional intelligence can be developed. It’s whether your approach actually changes behaviour—or just raises awareness.
HR leaders ask us this constantly: “Can we actually develop EI in our managers, or is it fixed like IQ?”
The research is clear. Emotional intelligence can be trained. But not how most organisations try.
We’ve run 450+ leadership programs across 150 companies. We’ve collected 52,000+ reflections from leaders working on self-awareness, self-regulation, and empathy. We’ve seen what actually shifts behaviour—and what gets forgotten within days.
This guide covers what the peer-reviewed research says works, how long development actually takes, and why most emotional intelligence training fails to stick.
Can Emotional Intelligence Actually Be Developed?
Yes. Unlike IQ, which remains relatively stable throughout life, emotional intelligence improves with deliberate practice.
The most comprehensive evidence comes from Mattingly and Kraiger’s 2019 meta-analysis, published in Human Resource Development Review. Examining 58 studies with thousands of participants, they found a moderate positive effect of training on emotional intelligence scores—an overall effect size of 0.61. That means emotional intelligence scores were, on average, more than half a standard deviation higher following training. The analysis showed positive effects regardless of participant gender or the type of EI measure used.
Randomised controlled trials confirm these findings hold up under rigorous testing.
Gilar-Corbí and colleagues (2019) provided a 30-hour emotional intelligence training course to senior managers using a pretest-posttest design with a control group. Results showed significant improvements with large effect sizes (η² ≥ .71 for key scales). Remarkably, scores remained stable or continued improving at one-year follow-up—demonstrating that the effects weren’t temporary.
Durham and colleagues (2023) validated an online emotional intelligence training program through a randomised trial with 326 participants. Those completing the program showed increased scores on both self-report and performance-based EI measures. Improvements remained significantly higher than baseline when measured six months after training ended.
A second meta-analysis by Mehler and colleagues (2024), synthesising workplace interventions, found moderate effect sizes that persisted more than three months after training. These effects remained consistent across professions and training approaches.
Emotional intelligence is trainable. The question is whether your training approach actually delivers results.
Why Most Emotional Intelligence Training Fails
When we ask leaders to complete a self-awareness exercise on our platform, their reflections tell a consistent story: surprise.
I always believe that I am an empathetic person... I was a bit surprised by my result.
I thought my score would be a little higher.
The results didn’t surprise me. But I feel they would surprise people who know me well.
That last one is telling. Organisational psychologist Dr. Tasha Eurich’s research found that while 95% of people believe they’re self-aware, only 10–15% actually meet the criteria. That’s 80%+ operating with a false picture of themselves and their impact on others.
This gap is where development starts. But most training skips it entirely.
What doesn’t work
| Approach | Problem |
|---|---|
| One-day workshops | Forgotten within days—awareness without behaviour change |
| Self-paced online modules | 5–15% completion rates, no accountability |
| Theory without application | Knowing about EI ≠ being able to use it under pressure |
| Skills training without foundation | You can’t teach feedback to someone who can’t regulate emotions |
The pattern we see repeatedly: organisations send struggling managers to a feedback workshop, a conflict course, a communication skills day.
It doesn’t stick. The same problems return.
The skills fail because the foundation isn’t there. You cannot teach feedback to someone who becomes reactive under pressure. You cannot teach conflict resolution to someone who doesn’t understand their own triggers.
Read: Emotional Intelligence for Leaders →
What the Research Says Actually Works
The peer-reviewed literature identifies specific approaches that produce lasting change.
1. Multimodal training targeting multiple EI domains
Programs addressing self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and relationship management simultaneously outperform single-skill interventions. The Durham study found that multimodal trainings produce better short-term and long-term outcomes than programs focusing on one skill in isolation.
2. Ability-based approaches that build actual skills
Hodzic and colleagues’ research concluded that interventions based on ability models of EI—those focused on developing actual competencies in perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions—have the largest effect sizes. Programs emphasising self-assessment alone produce weaker results.
This has direct implications for HR buyers: prioritise training that develops observable skills, not just raises awareness.
3. Sustained practice over months, not days
Five-week programs show improvement. Thirty-hour programs show large, lasting effects. The Gilar-Corbí study demonstrated that training delivered over several weeks generated significant improvements that persisted at one-year follow-up.
Behaviour change requires repetition across real situations. One-day workshops cannot deliver this.
4. Distributed learning beats compressed delivery
The Durham study tested the same 10–12 hour online program delivered over one week versus three weeks. The distributed (three-week) approach showed stronger long-term retention, consistent with research showing that spacing practice over longer periods improves information recall.
5. Cohort accountability increases follow-through
Peer learning and social commitment dramatically improve completion and application. Our completion rates run 88–93%—compared to the 5–15% industry average for self-paced online learning.
6. Assessment → feedback → practice loop
Effective development starts with baseline measurement, uses 360-degree feedback to reveal blind spots, and provides structured practice in real contexts—not hypothetical case studies.
Future leaders must first be convinced of the relevance of change and its benefits to them. Then, they must learn the skills. But most importantly, they must practice and apply the behaviors repeatedly, over the course of a significant period of time, to embed and cement these behaviors into habit.
— AACSB Innovations That Inspire
How Long Does It Take to Improve Emotional Intelligence?
The research establishes clear timeframes for different types of change.
For individual skill development
| Outcome | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Shifts in self-awareness | Weeks |
| Behaviour change in self-regulation | 2–3 months |
| Empathy improvement others notice | 3–4 months |
| Sustained change that sticks | 4–6 months |
For business metrics (ROI planning)
| Outcome | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Productivity improvements (10–15%) | 3–6 months |
| Employee retention (10–20% improvement) | 6–12 months |
| Customer satisfaction (5–10%) | 6–12 months |
| Leadership effectiveness (15–20%) | 12–18 months |
This is why our programs run 6–9 months. Shorter programs raise awareness. Longer programs change behaviour.
An important finding from Gilar-Corbí’s research: some dimensions—emotional understanding and emotion management—continued improving between post-training assessment and one-year follow-up. Training initiates a developmental trajectory that continues as leaders apply skills in real-world contexts.
The Sequence That Makes EI Development Stick
Most training treats emotional intelligence skills as separate modules. Self-awareness here. Feedback there. Conflict somewhere else.
But Daniel Goleman’s four domains aren’t separate—they’re sequential. Each one builds on the one before.
Everyone thinks I have a lot of patience. Even though I get angry, I don’t show it to people.
I have very different reactions in public than I do in private at home.
Without accurate self-awareness, everything that follows is built on a false foundation.
Read: Emotional Awareness — The Skill Most Leaders Think They Have →
When stress triggers the limbic system, the prefrontal cortex goes partially offline. Leaders become reactive, defensive, unable to think clearly. In Red Brain, feedback comes out wrong. Conversations escalate.
I need to be able to slow my mind down when under pressure so that I can make better decisions. I feel that this one weakness alone has hindered my progress for some time now.
A lot of the time I react before I process what’s happening—fight or flight mode—and I tend to go straight to fight mode.
Read: Achieve Emotional Self-Control →
I realized that my approach was more direct than I thought and I used examples to show empathy when this might not be empathetic at all.
I learnt not to relate it back to me and focus on how they are feeling.
I probably jump too quick offering solutions without listening to get the full picture.
This is the empathy trap. Leaders think they’re being empathetic by sharing their own experiences. Actually, they’re hijacking the conversation.
Choosing an Approach
| Format | Best For | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| One-day workshop | Awareness building, introducing concepts | Doesn’t change behaviour (forgotten within days) |
| Self-paced online | Scalability, cost efficiency | Low completion rates (5–15%), no accountability |
| Cohort-based + mentoring | Sustained behaviour change, peer learning | Requires organisational commitment |
| Executive coaching | Senior leaders, individualised development | Expensive, not scalable |
The format that changes behaviour combines daily practice, cohort accountability, and ongoing mentoring over months—not days.
What Change Looks Like
We see the shift consistently in leader reflections.
Before:
I react before I process what’s happening—fight or flight mode.
After:
Focusing on one thing at a time helps. Taking a moment between different tasks and walking away from my desk.
Before:
I probably jump too quick offering solutions.
After:
Open-ended questions give someone a chance to speak. It helps to build a bigger picture so you really can walk in someone else’s shoes.
Before:
I need to slow my mind down when under pressure.
After:
I have started to slow down talking so I am not rushing, and take a deep breath between sentences.
The results show in organisations:
| Organisation | Key Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| MYOB | 50% of 2020 cohort promoted | 264+ participants over 5 years. 98% completion rate. |
| Camp Quality | 30% of participants promoted | +5% organisation engagement score. |
Program at a Glance
Methodology developed with Monash Business School. Recognised by AACSB’s Innovations That Inspire.
Related Reading
Emotional Intelligence for Leaders — The complete guide →
Emotional Awareness: The Skill Most Leaders Think They Have →
Achieve Emotional Self-Control →
Sources
1. Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2019). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation. Human Resource Development Review, 18(2), 140–168. Link
2. Gilar-Corbí, R., Pozo-Rico, T., Sánchez, B., & Castejón, J. L. (2019). Can emotional intelligence be improved? A randomized experimental study of a business-oriented EI training program for senior managers. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0224254. Link
3. Durham, T. W., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of online emotional intelligence training: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1221817. Link
4. Mehler, F., et al. (2024). Emotional intelligence training in the workplace: A meta-analysis. PubMed Central. Link
5. Eurich, T. (2017). Insight: The Surprising Truth About How Others See Us, How We See Ourselves, and Why the Answers Matter More Than We Think. Crown Business.
6. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93–102.
About the author
Ashley Leach is Founder of Leda. Leda’s leadership development methodology was co-developed with Professor Anne Lytle (Monash Business School, Kellogg PhD) and has been recognised by AACSB’s Innovations That Inspire. The platform has supported thousands of emerging leaders across Australia and New Zealand, with completion rates of 88–98% — compared to 3–15% for typical digital learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. Meta-analyses across 58+ studies confirm that emotional intelligence training produces significant improvements that persist months after training ends. Unlike IQ, EI responds to deliberate practice. The key is sustained development over months, not one-off workshops.
Self-awareness shifts happen within weeks. Meaningful behaviour change in self-regulation takes 2–3 months. Empathy improvements that others notice require 3–4 months. Sustained change that sticks takes 4–6 months of consistent practice. Business metrics like retention and leadership effectiveness improve over 6–18 months.
Research identifies six factors: multimodal training targeting multiple EI domains, ability-based approaches that build actual skills, sustained practice over months, distributed learning (not compressed delivery), cohort accountability, and an assessment-feedback-practice loop. Programs combining these elements produce the largest and most lasting effects.
One-day workshops are forgotten within days. Self-paced modules have 5–15% completion rates. Skills training without the emotional foundation fails under pressure. Leaders learn feedback frameworks but can’t execute them when stress triggers reactivity. The sequence matters: self-awareness, then self-management, then empathy, then application.
Effective measurement combines validated instruments (like EQ-i 2.0), 360-degree feedback from colleagues, observable behaviour change in real situations, and business outcomes like engagement scores, retention, and promotion rates. Self-report alone is insufficient—the self-awareness gap means leaders often overestimate their own EI.