Three Questions to Keep Emotions From Undermining Your Goals

By Olivia Hart

Three questions form the core of Justin Bariso’s method for keeping emotions from derailing goals, workplace feedback and personal decisions. Bariso, an Inc.com columnist and emotional intelligence coach, says the questions shift attention from who is right or wrong toward the outcome a person wants.

What problem is Bariso trying to solve?

Bariso’s premise is blunt: emotions often obstruct goals and objectives. He says people can become trapped in proving who is right or wrong instead of identifying what they are trying to do. He acknowledges that feelings and being right matter to an extent, but says they can block the intended result.

Bariso uses “goal” loosely as a synonym for “objective,” although he says “objective” is more precise and “goal” easier to understand. His definition is practical: “I often describe emotional intelligence as your ability to understand and manage emotions in a way that allows you to reach a goal or solve a problem.”

The opinion column offers no study, survey or performance data to test that definition. Its basis is expert judgment and examples, so readers should treat the framework as a decision aid rather than a proven predictor of workplace or relationship outcomes.

That caveat matters because Bariso ties emotional intelligence directly to goal setting. He agrees with prevailing practices such as SMART goals and using smaller goals as stepping stones toward larger ones. His narrower point is that identifying the objective gives a person a way to judge whether emotions support the intended result.

Bariso’s wider column answers workplace questions involving a coworker who brings personal life to work, controlling emotions when triggered and stopping defensiveness. This installment concentrates on goal setting. In practical terms, emotional intelligence here means deciding what matters before deciding how to feel.

How does critical feedback change the decision?

His first example is critical feedback from a colleague, especially feedback delivered poorly. Bariso says resentment can stop the recipient from benefiting from it. The alternative is to focus on the objective of finding value in critical feedback, then regulate emotions, discard what is unhelpful and use what is useful.

The source does not explain how to assess whether criticism is accurate. It also omits malicious delivery, workplace power differences and evidence that emotional regulation improves results.

That leaves the move from reaction to evaluation as a useful prompt rather than a complete feedback protocol. In plain terms, a goal can organize attention, but feedback still needs enough substance to evaluate.

Can the same method apply to a relationship?

Bariso extends the method to an argument with a significant other. He says the instinct to prove that one partner is right can displace the relationship’s objective. According to him, some disputes merit sustained discussion; others are small enough that preserving a peaceful, happy relationship can justify overlooking the issue, conceding a point or seeking a win-win solution.

Bariso presents concession and compromise as options, not rules for every disagreement. The column does not address repeated imbalance, harmful conflicts or cases where partners have materially different objectives.

Its relationship example is therefore illustrative rather than comprehensive. In plain terms, the method asks people to choose a relationship outcome before deciding how hard to press an argument.

What are the three questions?

Bariso tells readers to ask themselves these three questions:

1. “What are the primary goals (objectives) here? (Both short and long-term)”
2. “Are my emotions helping or hindering me from reaching those goals?”
3. “If they’re hindering me, what must I change or what strategies can I employ to help me make progress towards the goal(s)?”

The sequence moves from purpose to self-diagnosis to action. Bariso says possible strategies range from principles that guide better decisions, including his own rules of emotional intelligence, to positive self-talk that recalls the mindset and actions associated with better results. He does not specify the principles or provide a measurement for “positive results.”

His conclusion is not to remove emotion from decisions. He says: “It’s not about taking emotions out of the equation, rather, balancing emotions with logic and sound reasoning.” The aim, he adds, is to make emotions work for a person rather than against the objective. In plain terms, the goal is balanced judgment, not emotional suppression.

What should business readers test next?

For a manager or team, the practical test is whether the three questions change a decision without silencing valid dissent. Bariso’s column supplies no controlled evidence, implementation guidance or performance metrics for making that judgment. It does provide a concise sequence that a manager could test in a live feedback session.

The page closes with invitations to send workplace questions with an emotional element to [email protected] and sign up for Bariso’s free emotional intelligence course. It also promotes leadership advice from CEO Stephanie Mehta and Inc.’s free CPG newsletter, Packaged Goods, for consumer-brand founders, investors and trends.

Bariso states that the views are his own, not Inc.’s. The promotional details clarify the column’s expert-commentary format, but they do not add evidence for the framework.

The next test is concrete: teams should judge the method by better decisions and preserved dissent, not by a calmer-looking meeting. If the three questions fail either test, Bariso’s framework remains advice rather than an operating advantage.