Think

Fantastic claims have been made about Emotional Intelligence (EI) and its importance for leadership and business success.  Daniel Goleman, one of EI’s leading proponents and author of several  best-selling books on the subject, has asserted that EI accounts for “nearly 90% of the difference” between the best performers at work and average ones.  Other investigators have reported similar findings, some in scientifically-reviewed journals that impose high standards on the evidence that goes to support such claims.  EI has been called more powerful than IQ in predicting top performance.

A recent article in American Psychologist asks, what is Emotional Intelligence?  Well, it depends on who you ask—and therein lies a real problem.  The term Emotional Intelligence was first coined by John D. Mayer at the University of New Hampshire and his colleagues in 1990.  The original conception was that people vary in their abilities to reason about emotions and to use them effectively.  It was seen as another dimension of general intelligence, which includes verbal ability, logic, spatial reasoning and so on.  According to Mayer, people with EI are able to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings, discriminate among them, and use that information to guide one’s thinking and actions.

As EI gained popularity with researchers (and the public), the original notion of what it is changed remarkably—so much, in fact, it’s often not clear what’s meant by it now.  There seem to be about as many different definitions of EI as there are experts on it.  One significant difference is that some researchers, including Goleman, are describing EI in terms of positive character traits or social skills (e.g., high self-esteem, assertive, optimistic).  It’s not apparent that what’s being called EI is actually any form of intelligence. Some developmentally-challenged individuals, even those with autism, can be taught to behave in socially appropriate ways. But does that mean they possess EI? Are they identifying, understanding, managing, and using emotions to facilitate thinking?

Of course, this creates an enormous problem for researchers and those trying to make sense of what the research means.  If EI refers to everything, it refers to nothing at all.  It isn’t all bad news, though.  It turns out that when EI is defined and measured as originally conceived, high EI correlates with more productive working relationships, behaviors that are supportive of the goals of the organization, and effectiveness in developing others.  These findings are independent of cognitive ability and personality factors.

What does it all mean?  My view is that there is a mental ability that involves the understanding and use of emotions to guide behavior.  We can call it Emotional Intelligence, but we need to be careful not to confuse it with a mix of personality traits and social skills (that may be important in their own right).  EI does appear to be one of perhaps many ingredients for success in leadership and in the business world.  More and better- controlled research is needed to understand just what EI is and how it can be used to best advantage in these contexts

Scott

As a pilot, I recently attended an Air Safety class on Take Off’s and Landings .  During the class, we reviewed the concept of the ‘controlled approach’ to landings. This concept is not new. You’re frequently schooled on it during your pilot training. It involves simultaneously controlling the horizontal axis of the wings, the descent rate, landing speed while taking account of wind speed and direction.  With sufficient practice, this process becomes fluid and almost intuitive. However, no matter how often you practice, no two landings are exactly the same, so one has to be fully engaged each time.

I noticed parallels between two of my recent readings – the first, on aggression in the workplace, and the other on the biology of leadership.  In a volume on counterproductive work behaviors (CWB’s), Joel Neuman and Robert Baron present their theory on aggression in the workplace.  In their model, workplace aggression is a product of two factors: those related to the social situation (e.g. seeing others behaving aggressively, uncomfortable or stressful environments) and individual characteristics (e.g. personality traits, attitudes about the acceptability of violence, power, status or position).  On exposure to a trigger event, the individual experiences an emotional reaction, thoughts and physical sensations.  The crucial determinant of their response is how they interpret this reaction. 

If the individual interprets the event as an act of aggression, they are likely to respond in kind, inevitably escalating the situation.  However, if one of the parties is able to modify their response – by changing the way they interpret the situation, and their reaction to it – they can prevent an escalation of CWB. 

Sounds simple – provided we are aware of, and can manage our own thinking processes.  So, how effectively are we able to do this?

Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis have found evidence for a specific group of neurons called Mirror Neurons whose purpose is to “mimic or mirror what another being does.” This has obvious benefits for positive and pro-social behavior.  At the same time, the presence of these Mirror Neurons may be bad news in terms of CWB. 

This finding suggests we can be influenced by neuronal activity of which we are not consciously aware.  The risk is that, when confronted by potential threat or aggressive behavior we rely on our instinct – the fight or flight response – rather than rational thinking.   

“312 Alpha Delta, cleared to land on runway 9 right”

Too often we engage autopilot in our interactions with others, behaving the way we always do, regardless of the person or the situation.  However, like landings, no two relationships are the same.  Effective relationship building requires self awareness and self management.   And like controlled take off and landing skills, these take time to develop, initially requiring effort and attention to detail which at times feel overwhelming.   Yet with practice, effort and feedback the multiple demands required for building effective working relationships can become second nature. 

Dan

I’m really pleased with the way it’s shaped up.  It’s involved the contribution of the whole consulting team in the UK and the US, as well as our designer, James Wilson at Subtense and Raz Firmager who has produced all the video segments. 
 
For me, project managing the re-design has been a fairly creative experience.  I don’t tend to see myself as a creative person.  I tend to leave that to musicians, artists, and those people who wear trainers to work.
 
I am not alone.  All of us tend to be constrained by functional fixedness.  We look at problems in the same way we always do – it’s comfortable to us.  When we do have creative ideas that are out of the norm, we tend to self-censor them by telling ourselves they are a bit rubbish, and feel too embarrassed to share them.
 
In this process, when I did have a creative thought, it tended to happen at inconvenient or unexpected times – we’ve all experienced this.  For me it was when playing with the kids in the park, having a shower, watching a film, in the middle of the night, over lunch – it drove my wife nuts. 
 
There are good reasons that it happens this way.  Once we have brought our rational thinking process to bear on a problem, we let it incubate – and leave the unconscious to do the work.  This is where the creative process really takes hold as ideas combine with one another in a way that is non-linear and unpredictable.  We can all do this.  It’s just that we have been brought up actively discouraged from doing it.
 
On the terrific site that is ted.com, Sir Ken Robinson delivers a treatise on the role of education in constraining our capacity for creative thought.

His argument runs that kids are naturally creative – they love music, dancing, painting; if they are not sure about something, they will take a chance – they are not afraid of making a mistake.   However, in education, we subtly, yet persuasively steer children away from the creative things they love because they won’t get a job doing them.  Emphasis is placed on the importance of “getting it right”; mistakes are stigmatised – just as they are at work.  He does not say that creative thinking is about making mistakes.  More that if you are not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with original ideas.   
 
His point?  Intelligence is multifaceted; education inadvertently curtails our capacity for creativity; and in a fast changing and uncertain world, the capacity to think creatively becomes as important as literacy.  He puts it across more persuasively than this.
 
As the full extent of the downturn becomes clear – just this weekend, the Chancellor was quoted, controversially, as saying the economic times are “arguably the worst they’ve been in 60 years” –  there is unlikely to be much change any time soon in the uncertainty under which all of us are now living and working.   
 
In organisations, at times like these, development budgets are often the first to see cuts.  Arguably, this is the time that creative thought and development are exactly what are required to prepare businesses for the challenges ahead. 

We hope you’ve found something on the site that’s captured your interest, and that you’ll visit us again soon.
 
Craig