A new perspective on emotional intelligence in the workplace
When a colleague is discouraged after a failed presentation, a team member is frustrated by a missed promotion, or someone on your team is struggling through a difficult transition, most leaders instinctively try to make things better. They offer reassurance, encourage optimism, and help reframe the situation in a more positive light. For decades, this has been considered the hallmark of emotional intelligence.
But what if that instinct isn’t universal?
A landmark international study involving more than 6,900 participants across 17 countries suggests that one of our most fundamental assumptions about empathy may actually be shaped more by culture than by human nature. The research found that while people around the world generally want to improve their own emotional state, they differ dramatically in how they believe they should respond to the emotions of others. In other words, culture has a far greater influence on how we support someone else’s emotions than on how we manage our own.
For leaders, this finding challenges a deeply ingrained habit: the belief that the most compassionate response is always to reduce another person’s distress.
In many Western, individualistic cultures, this approach feels natural. Leaders are taught to validate emotions, encourage positive thinking, and help people move beyond disappointment as quickly as possible. Success is often associated with personal happiness, resilience, and emotional well-being, making the reduction of distress seem like an obvious expression of care.
The study found, however, that this perspective is far from universal. In many collectivistic cultures—including countries such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India—negative emotions are not necessarily viewed as problems that need to be solved. Instead, they are often seen as valuable experiences that encourage self-reflection, strengthen relationships, build humility, and create meaning through adversity. Attempting to immediately remove someone’s discomfort may actually interfere with an important process of personal growth.
Perhaps the most surprising discovery was not that these cultural differences exist, but where they exist. Across virtually every country studied, people shared a remarkably similar desire to regulate their own emotions toward greater happiness and well-being. The major differences emerged only when participants considered someone else’s emotional experience. Culture, it appears, shapes our beliefs about what other people should feel and what it means to truly support them.
This insight has important implications for today’s leaders. Organizations are increasingly global, with teams spanning multiple countries, cultures, and value systems. A leadership behavior that communicates empathy in one culture may unintentionally signal dismissal or misunderstanding in another. A manager who immediately encourages an employee to “look on the bright side” may believe they are being supportive, while the employee may have preferred the opportunity to process disappointment before moving toward solutions.
The lesson is not that one approach is superior to another. Rather, it reminds us that emotional intelligence is more nuanced than we often assume. True empathy requires more than recognizing another person’s emotions—it requires understanding how they interpret those emotions and what kind of support they actually need.
This opens the door to more thoughtful leadership conversations. Instead of immediately trying to solve emotional discomfort, leaders might ask themselves: What does this emotion mean to this individual? Are they looking for encouragement, or do they simply need someone willing to sit with them in the difficulty? Am I trying to remove their discomfort because it serves them—or because it relieves my own discomfort as a leader? These questions often lead to deeper understanding than quick reassurance ever could.
This research also invites us to reconsider the meaning of psychological safety. Many organizations mistakenly equate psychological safety with making people feel comfortable. In reality, growth, innovation, and resilience often emerge from periods of uncertainty, frustration, and constructive discomfort. Psychological safety is not the elimination of difficult emotions; it is creating an environment where those emotions can be expressed, explored, and learned from without fear of judgment or punishment.
One of the greatest responsibilities of leadership is learning to distinguish between reducing discomfort and facilitating growth. Sometimes people genuinely need reassurance. Sometimes they need perspective. But there are also moments when the most supportive response is simply to remain present while another person works through a difficult experience on their own terms.
Rather than asking, “How can I make this person feel better?” exceptional leaders may begin asking a far more powerful question:
“What kind of support will help this person grow?”
Reference: Ginosar Yaari, S., Tamir, M., et al. (2026). People in more individualist cultures are more motivated to make others feel better. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(26), e2533994123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2533994123
