Organizations still expect representatives to demonstrate emotional regulation, empathy, and judgment under pressure. But they lack reliable mechanisms to build or even observe those skills over time.
This pattern is not accidental. EI is complex to observe, difficult to develop consistently under operational pressure, and is therefore often inferred rather than measured. When development is constrained, hiring is asked to compensate and proxies step in where direct evidence is missing.
MEASURING EI CORRECTLY
As organizations raise EI requirements, but assess them primarily through unstructured interviews, loosely scored role plays, or subjective evaluations of“ professionalism,” it is no longer measured directly.
Instead, EI becomes a proxy for communication style, interview presence, or cultural familiarity. These signals may feel intuitive, but they are weak signals for job-relevant behavior that could drive improvements in job performance.
What feels like EI in an interview may simply be confidence or comfort with the format. Sounding calm is not the same as staying regulated when the situation is not.
In those cases, the hiring bar rises, but selection becomes less consistent and less transparent. Capable candidates are screened out for reasons that have little to do with their ability to succeed on the job, while others are screened in based on polish rather than performance potential.
IF EI IS A BASELINE REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN CONTACT CEN- TER ROLES, IT SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER JOB SKILL...
Frameworks such as the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory( ESCI) describe EI through observable and developable competencies( e. g., self-management and social awareness). This reinforces the point that it is not a personality label but instead it is a capability that can grow over time.
Raising EI requirements pre-hire is also not a neutral change in terms of access. It reshapes who is more likely to be screened in or out. What we call“ empathy” or“ professionalism” is filtered through cultural expectations about tone, expressiveness, and conversational style.
Without careful design, EI screening can become less about identifying who can succeed in the role and more about selecting candidates who sound right in an interview.
This method can also unintentionally penalize neurodivergent candidates who may communicate differently during screenings or role plays, despite their potential to excel in highly structured, workflow-intensive support roles. Particularly when the expectations are clear and coaching is structured.
In practice, it often creates a mismatch between selection and performance. Organizations can overestimate EI based on interview presence and underestimate it in candidates who are calmer, less expressive, or culturally different in their communication style.
The unintended consequences are avoidable false negatives and narrowed candidate pools: without measurable improvements in actual outcomes such as CSAT, resolution quality, or escalation volume.
Because EI is both critical to performance and difficult to observe directly, the solution is not to lower the EI bar, but to raise measurement quality and consistency.
CONTACT CENTER SKILLS
When EI is assessed through unstructured interviews, subjective impressions of professionalism, or assumptions from work experience, organizations risk confusing familiarity with capability.
By contrast, when candidates are evaluated on observable behaviors such as:
• Recognizing customer emotion accurately,
• Choosing appropriate de-escalation strategies,
• Maintaining tone control, and
• Applying policy constraints with judgment,
EI becomes something that can be measured rather than as an attribute that can be inferred.
This approach keeps standards high without narrowing access unnecessarily. By defining EI in behavioral terms and applying consistent scoring, organizations can reduce noise and variability in hiring decisions while avoiding proxies that screen out capable candidates.
If EI is a baseline requirement for modern contact center roles, it should be treated like any other job skill: clearly defined, measured consistently, and strengthened through structured training and deliberate practice. Without that discipline, rising EI expectations risk reinforcing the very hiring challenges organizations are trying to solve. This pattern becomes even more pronounced when other skills are screened using similar proxies.
April Cantwell, Ph. D., is Director of People Science at Harver, where she helps organizations turn hiring data into better decisions and better outcomes. For more than 20 years, she has worked at the intersection of applied research and real-world talent strategy, specializing in assessment design, workforce analytics, and practical, evidence-based hiring.
MAY 2026 15