In the first three parts of this series, we looked at leaders who dropped the ball. I believe there is one thing they were all missing, whether they were criminals or just bad bosses: Emotional intelligence.
Sounds like something we should all strive for, right? It’s an oft-used buzz phrase around companies for the last decade or so, but psychologists have been talking about it since the 1990s. Also sometimes called emotional quotient (EQ), do you know what emotional intelligence really means? And is it just psychobabble, a valuable tool to use in the workplace, or perhaps something slightly more sinister?
Psychologists John Mayer and Peter Salvoney, who are two top researchers on the subject according to VeryWellMind.com, define emotional intelligence as “the ability to recognize and understand emotions in oneself and others. The ability involves using the emotional understanding to make decisions solve problems and communicate with others.”
At its core, it’s about understanding the link between mood and how people behave and make decisions. It seems like it could be a very valuable tool in leadership, doesn’t it?
The Case for Emotional Intelligence
In Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, he suggests that emotional intelligence may be a better indicator at predicting success than actual intelligence. He said that people who are successful and leaders in their professions aren’t just smart, but they have a strong amount of emotional intelligence.
Aside from theories, what are the actual benefits of holding a high level of emotional intelligence? According to a study by the University of Southern California, these five areas were highlighted:
It helps leaders motivate and inspire good work by understanding others’ motivations.
It brings more individuals to the table and helps avoid the many pitfalls of groupthink.
It empowers the leader to recognize and act on opportunities others may be unaware of.
It assists in the recognition and resolution of conflict in a fair and even-handed way.
It can produce higher morale and assist others in tapping their professional potential.
The key to developing your emotional intelligence is to sharpen your empathy skills according to Jennifer Bridges, a performance coach and project management professional who speaks on the subject to corporations. She told ProjectManager.com the way to do that is three-pronged:
Be aware of others’ emotions. The first step to empathy is identifying emotional states in others.
Detect when someone is shut down and upset. Even just asking if they are is a start to opening their feelings and yours.
Leverage information when resolving team conflict.
The Case Against Emotional Intelligence
Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto psychologist, is in the camp that emotional intelligence is just old school theory presented in a new way to sell books. He believes it’s really just an extension of the trait of agreeableness.
There is also the fact there is no universally acceptable test to measure emotional intelligence, according to Steve Toback, author of Real Leaders Don’t Follow.
“The more delusional, narcissistic and sociopathic you are, the easier it is for you to game the tests and the more likely you are to come out sounding like you’re as self-aware and empathetic as a Zen master or a Buddhist monk,” Toback told Entrepreneur.com
I find the more interesting argument that emotional intelligence may be a bad thing to come from those who see it as a tool of manipulation.
Historian Roger Moorhouse described a leader of the 20th Century in a 2016 article in The Atlantic as one who spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language, practicing hand gestures and analyzing images and film of his body movements. This man became “an absolutely spellbinding public speaker because it was something he worked very hard on.”
Clarence Johnson, who wrote speeches for a 20th Century leader was interviewed in the same article. He talked about choosing language that would stir the hearts of the speaker’s audience because the speaker had the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotions both of himself and the audience. He delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope.”
Moorhouse was talking about Adolf Hitler. Johnson was talking about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Research by a University of Cambridge Professor, Jochen Menges, shows that when a leader gives an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remember less of the content. Ironically, the audience feel so moved by the speech, they believe they recall more of it. Menges called this the “awestruck effect.”
So, which school of thought is correct? I think they both make valid points, but ultimately it comes down to having as many tools in your toolbox as a leader. There are times when leading a group and getting them onboard with plans involves figuring out what motivates them. With some people, that can veer into unethical territory quickly.
Unlike masses of people swayed by dynamic public speakers, I believe that if leaders abuse their emotional intelligence ability, workers will be able to see through it before too long.
It’s absolutely crucial to understand how emotions can affect a workplace, but it’s important to not play on those emotions and manipulate people for your own, or the company’s gain.