Hello Octavio:

The most-admired managers and leaders are in fact people of high emotional stability. That is the reason why they most often make correct and durable decisions. And it is a prime reason for them holding themselves to higher ethical standards.

If they were at the opposite end of the emotional spectrum, they would be neurotic. They would make bad or rash decisions, especially in times of high stress, largely due to their lack of confidence, among other weaknesses..

The madman leader (Hitler, Sadam) eventually makes decisions which lead to his downfall. The leader who brings emotional stability to the task (Churchill) is the one who succeeds. They handle stress and crisis in totally different ways, and they bring a calming effect to the teams which they lead. They feel secure and comfortable in their role, and they bring comfort and security to those whom they lead. I don't see how anyone can aspire to true leadership without such qualities.

Obviously, therefore, any otherwise-qualified leader who can enhance their emotional intelligence will enhance their leadership capability. I am not sure how emotional intelligence can best be developed. It seems to me to depend on a number of psychological and personality factors that might best be assisted through some kind of counseling, coaching, or mentoring which helps them work through their insecurities, etc., to become more circumspect and balanced in their judgments.

I think a good starting point is to encourage executives to consider their "thinking style" and how they behave and respond to certain situations. To become more emotionally stable, they need to recognize how and in what ways they might be lacking in that area. If they can honestly examine, or be made to see, how they in practice react to certain situations, and how they make certain types of decisions, then they can find pathways that allow them to modify that behavior.

I think if executives are asked to review past decisions, and to identify those they are happy with, plus those that they wish they had decided differently, then they will be able to see to what extent their emotions intruded into each type of decision. Then they perhaps can identify a pattern of behavior that might be improved upon. If they can ask themselves, "Was I as emotionally mature or as stable as I might have been in that situation?", and can answer honestly, then they will find ways to improve.

I think that by looking at past decisions in a calmer environment than prevailed at the stressful time the decision was made, then they will see that they could have modified the decision, the related strategy, as well as how they communicated it.

In any event, I absolutely do believe that emotional intelligence is, if I might say so, an emotionally-intelligent way to proceed in developing leaders. ;-)

I think any such training program should include facets such as:

1. How to develop the ability to sense, understand, and apply emotions.
2. Understand the importance of emotional perceptions in business.
3. Learn how EQ influences the way we respond to people/situations.
4. Learn how to apply EQ in teamwork and accountability.

Hope that is helpful.

Best Wishes! Frank

posted September 22, 2008

Summary of what I have written below: EQ is an important must for top leader but not for all managers because EQ comes at the expense of many other traits an organization may require. Therefore, train only to-be leaders for high EQ and for the rest emphasize on making job-based, very fine tuned person specs. Now read on the full answer.

Octavio, very good question. Years back, a Harvard research showed that ‘80% of a person’s success on job is related to his attitude and only 20% to knowledge and skills.’ Right attitude required for success is a product of emotional intelligence and has a direct correlation. Therefore one hardly needs to over emphasize that leaders must have a high EQ. That’s an established fact. See some of the articles:

http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6226
http://eqi.org/mgtpaper.htm

You will find many more if you search under leadership and Emotional Intelligence. EI is not only a pre-requisite for good leadership, a certain mid level EQ is a pre-requisite for anyone wanting to lead a balanced normal social life. At one time before mid Fifties EQ was known under the name of Social Intelligence.

Having said that, Octavio, in my professional practice I have rarely come across recruitment processes utilizing any particular method for assessing a candidate’s EQ. I have many times asked candidates who I knew were for future leadership positions to take online EQ tests and have used results in the selection process but I admit I have never institutionalized the practice.

I am a strong believer that lesser EQ may have affordable consequences at lower management levels, a leadership role’s success is hinged on the level of his EQ. Many will disagree but I said it. A top leader with less subject knowledge, less experience and less communications skills but high EQ is bound to be more successful than one with immense knowledge, experience and gift of gab but small EQ.

OK, but that does not mean that every manager must have a same degree of EQ. that will be counterproductive and result in turnover. Not every manager will reach the top. So succession planning for top leaders may take this into account but not for all managers. Why? Because while high EQ makes a person strong in will and insightful in vision, it also makes him aware of his potentials and he wants to reach higher goals, higher than a normal organization’s hierarchy can offer. So he will either get the leadership slot in the organization or will get it elsewhere.

There is another aspect why not all managers should be required to have high EQs. A high EQ doesn’t come without cost. Many a times it comes at the expense of innovational traits, out of the box thinking, original experimentation of ideas, execution ability with a tunnel vision. All of these traits are required in an organzoation for one job or another and for some particular functions. A strong EQ person may not be a right candidate for scientific research. Steve Jobs I doubt has a strong EQ but can anybody refute his ability to think out of the box and deliver original new concepts to the world?

To conclude, I agree that managers should be trained progressively to improve their EQ but only those who are earmarked to play role as leaders in the future. That only emphasizes how serious Job Specifications should be taken.

posted September 22, 2008

Octavio:
I may be the dissenter. I think having well developed Emotional Intelligence skills contributes significantly to effective leadership. How many times have we seen people who were "brilliant" fail miserably in attempting to lead an organization or champion a vision because they could not effectively articulate that vision and gain commitment from their followers.
I have worked with many scientific and medical organizations where the leadership model based on IQ or academic capability failed miserably.
Without followers there is no leader. Brilliance is not a substitute for empathy, communication skills, and basic human relations skills.
Most leaders that fail do so because of their inability to form and nuture effective teamwork skills- not their technical abilities.
You must have business or organizational competencies as well, but the best leaders create clarity, trust, hire to complement their skills, and create strong teams.
Truth be told charisma, the ability to build trust and confidence, and empathy are a lot more effective in times of stress or change than perceived intellect.
I have said it before and I will state it again- leadership is something you earn not something bestowed on you by lineage or genetic disposition. You may have the attributes, but if you can't deploy or apply them you fail.

posted September 22, 2008

Octavio,
If this was not such a difficult question to give a successful answer to, the world could be changed for the better real quick.
Frank Feather's answer was very good so I will not repeat what he said but understanding his answer will be necessary to understand mine.
Most of our EI was molded in our brain from ages zero to twenty. People tend to continue to do the same things right and the same things wrong ever after. Those who succeed easily and crash and burn every time the economy makes a change do that again.
But not all managers need the same talents. When a large conglomerate bought many magazines including 'Mad' magazine, they realized that Mad had to be run by different people. It takes a certain sarcasm to produce something like that. So they had all the other magazines managed by organized people and different for that one.
Menacham Begin spent three days between floor joists hiding from the enemy and finally was taken out before he died there. Isrealis like hard line leaders and he was.
Henry Ford was exellent with consistency which showed in his assembly lines and making cars cheap for the common person. The same trait made him think that people might like a different collor as long as it was black. So the same consistent routine that made him successful and an industry leader, also almost killed the company. The personality and emotional attitude that is successful in one company or in one era, may not be what is necessary in another situation or another company. A manager in one cultural setting may not be best in another.
It may be easier and more importantly more effective to find where each person fits than to make someone fit somewhere else no matter how they want to succeed. This becomes more difficult when choosing leaders than other positions. I heard of a Somalian immigrant who did not fit on the line in a packing plant but was happy as a lark on the loading dock because he could see the sun. Choosing management for the future is not that easy. What will the situation be at your company in five years. If our experts knew what the economy would be right now, five years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in. It might in some cases even require that a different person be in charge now than when the economy was stable. If someone had predicted this present economic disaster a couple years ago that we are now having we would have thought they were to pessimistic to lead. Leaders do need to have a broad enough vision to see past what the experts in the strengths of their own business know. That is why scientists and medical experts do not always do well in management. They know the internal real well but not the external factors. They understand very predictable things but not comfortable in a changing environment.
So how do you train yourself and your people for this. Frank's idea of looking at past situations and how that turned out is necessary to even know if you have a problem.
Training methods will never equal the experience that Begin had between the floor joints because if you laid there three days you would not see it as dangerous. Some have taken survival weeks in the jungle and learned self confidence that they could do things that they could not plan perfectly. These exercises help but your own psychological make up is more important.
But you are a whole person. Is being the toughest in the office make you a great parent or spouse. Be happy with who you are, improve where you need to and find where you fit.
If you lead because you do not feel safe anyway else, chill. If someone can sit back and analyze without being in control, if they can handle stress of not being in control and still function consistently, they may be a better leader in very uncertain times.
Those who have had an attitude of continuous improvement may be the most adaptable to fast changing times.

posted September 23, 2008

Having worked for and alongside many people with seemingly high EQ, which translated, is the ability to make and maintain work based relationships. I have noticed those with higher EQ are not effective managers falling into the trap of using symbolic gestures, imagery and endless meetings to foster false consensus. Also every high EQ guy I have known has possessed a voracious appetite for horizontal
activities with work colleagues.

Moreover, those with high EQ are also prone to deceitful and manipulative behavior, guile even treachery as relationships is their only or primary skill.

When times are easy and business is good and no tough decisions need to be made then high EQ is acceptable enough but when times get tougher and hard decisions must be taken, then the high EQ manager seems to flounder.

An adequate EQ with a high IQ and an above average PSQ( practical strategic intelligence) backed up with an above average DQ ( determination to get things done intelligence) is probably the most effective combination.

Having said that, high EQ exec candidates will mostly be hired over those candidates with a not so high EQ. Those execs who focus on relationships are also more prone to being corrupted by power, more prone to stick their hands in the cookie jar, more prone to succumb to a sense of entitlement, more prone to assume their own screw ups can be passed off as someone else's problem and far more prone to be lazy on the job.

Considering EQ and how it is applied. As few competent managers could have a zero EQ it is reasonable to assume that any commercially competent manager is at least somewhere around the middle. Therefore EQ is only a decisive factor in upward not downward communications and thus EQ becomes the art of managing power relationships with ones bosses and perhaps peers.

From my observations the more competent and high achieving a senior executive is the bigger the problem they have communicating with their bosses. Some consultancies purport to teach execs on how to say, deal with boards of directors. Interestingly, the two main topics are patience and the ability to repeat the same thing over and over without getting rattled.

My view is EQ is probably worthwhile in monopolies or any bureaucracy
but not much else.

posted September 24, 2008

Great leaders need qualification - no doubt. But technical skills are not the key factor. It's not for nothing called leading people - we are not leading machines.

And to lead people you have to understand what makes them tick.

In my experience great leaders create an environment (consciously or unconsciously) that allows the members of your team to live their potential in a self-esteem, self-confidence enhancing way.

If these components are not present, you will have puppets or politics, but not independently thinking, creatively solutions focused co-operators that (in an ideal world) are fully engaged in bringing the vision of the organisation to live.

Well, for that you've got to have a mission, first. But even more important are the preliminary steps, before your employees will even want to buy into your mission.

These steps, as seen by the employee, are:
(c) International Council for Self-Esteem

1. SECURITY - am I allowed to be who I am where I am, ie. am I at the right place and are my strengths and weaknesses both employed and managed, so that I can feel accepted and secure. This doesn't mean that my tasks can't be demanding, but I have to understand what are the rules that we play the game by.

2. IDENTITY: Do I know who I am and what I can bring into the organization in term of skills, attitude, mindset, creativity, etc. And do I get a chance to openly accept my weaknesses and thrive on my strengths. All this I can only do when step 1. Security is present.

3. BELONGING: Who are the people who share my values, who I can co-create with the best. I want to belong, be part of a team, contribute to a greater purpose and be accepted for what I am contributing. All this I can only do when 1. I have security and 2. I know who I am.

4. VISION AND PURPOSE: Now, and only now, after 1, 2, and 3 are present am I ready to accept and buy into a vision that gives me the clarity how I can help accomplish the mission - and I will do that fullheartedly, when I feel BELONGING, coming from IDENTITY and SECURITY

5. COMPETENCE: When I have found or taken on the VISION then I need to be allowed to acquire the competencies to make it actually happen.

A leader who can facilitate these 5 steps in this order will be able to create an organization that lives openness, trust, clarity, purpose and is delivering its service at a 110% rate of excellence. And just besides, everyone is having a great time.

Of course this is the ideal picture, but we have seen again and again that these steps create miracles in the lives of people and organizations.

posted September 24, 2008

I have also considered this subject and find it interesting to study. Perhaps the version I am considering is along the same topic you are interested in investigating. That is, the viability that a high EQ leader is better than a high IQ leader.

Considering these, I believe that the high IQ leader can be trained to achieve a higher EQ but not the other way around. It is my opinion and perhaps not one shared by most people.

Thus, the answer to your question based on my thoughts, is that a higher EQ will not necessarily lead to a potential leader in organization. Now, it may also be important to identify what type of organization is under discussion. However, my belief should hold valid for most organization types.

Cristian

posted September 22, 2008

Only if he has high business intelligence.

Dave Maskin
http://www.WireNames.com
"a strand of wire is transformed into a work of art at your event."
...Available for trade shows, conventions, corporate events and private parties...
davemaskin@yahoo.com
(201) 358-1296
(LION) - Invite me

Links:

• http://www.WireNames.com

posted September 22, 2008

Consider reading the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. There are distinct differences between a manager and a leader and in many cases, the transisiton can be difficult or unsuccessful. In simpliest terms, a manager is focused on protecting and nurturing his people and has more of an internal view and focus. A leader is a visionary with an externalview and focus beyond the organization, which is what drive the organizational growth and success.

posted September 22, 2008

For a leader emotional intelligence is essential. They have to make decisions based on information and informated risk taking and decisions, in the midst of things is essential. Also, they have to have a stable emotional intelligence and character to develop and empower the employees.

posted September 22, 2008

A high EQ is vital for a successful leader, only EQ does not guarantee sucess. A sucessful business leader also needs to have a balance of other attributes like IQ, Knowledge, People handling skills etc...

posted September 22, 2008

Octavio,

As you well know, a manager and a leader are two independent facets n management. Which facet to possess in a given scenario also depends, in my experience, on the type of team that the manager has.

For a manager to take on the role of a leader for a team that has no knowledge of EI or a low EQ has no impact - to the effect that the team does not benefit at all from such a manager who may also have excellent leadership skills.

In such a scenario, the manager is the better head of such a team and through organizational regulations and rules is better able to manage the team than waste time leading them.

Yes, for a manager to be a good leader, a high EQ would be a positive quality but as noted above, there is no real transition from a manager to a leader; both qualities (leadership as well as managerial skills) need to be present in a person to become a good manager. This, of course, applies to the middle managemet level.

But, there are the top corporate positions like a CEO or the other Os, where a true leader can be present. Here, a leader is more effective than a manager as management is not required from the Os but vision and leadership to guide and lead an organization in any kind of stuation.

I guess your question's context can be established only at the middle management or lower (developing managers from team leads).

I hope my two cents are worthy!

posted September 23, 2008

Thought-provoking, if bizarre, question.

There are different styles of leadership which correspond to different roles in an organization, and the best decision vis-a-vis developing personnel is to evaluate the individual's strengths and weaknesses, ask him (male gender adopted for sake of simplicity) his goals, and thereby discern the wisdom of grooming him for the promotion you had in mind.

I will not go so far as to say that leaders are born, but not made, however so much of what people believe to be the observable behaviors of a competent leader take place on a subconscious level. It is a very difficult task to train someone to trust their gut -- and yet that is the sine qua non of leadership. We fool ourselves if we think for a moment that we possess all the facts relevant to making all but the most simple of business decisions -- a leader must decide and act in spite of this lack of information.

"...strategic coaching in virtue of which a manager could acquire mastery in perceiving, using, understanding and managing his/her emotions."

Does such a thing exist outside of the Oriental martial arts?

"May be a higher Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ) the relevant indicator to be applied in identifying early to those potential leaders in an organization?"

EQ is a red herring. Critical thinking and charisma are far more vital.

-- Ainandil

posted September 23, 2008

In my opinion EQ is the key ingredient to leadership. By a mile. Having said that, actually defining what EQ is or represents, or what IQ is or represents for that matter, is more difficult than is generally assumed!

Leaving all that to one side, EQ may not be sufficient on it's own, but certainly IQ is not. If EQ is being able to empathise and communicate, then it is difficult to imagine what cannot be achieved with it. Those with IQ become simply tools of it. I don't think anyone ever suggested that Hitler had a high IQ but his natural influencing skills, all be it demonic ones, his EW cannot seriously be in doubt! The greatest generals as far as I know never got to run the army!

Training someone in EQ seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. EQ, despite what NLP practitioners may insist, is not "trainable" it is something that has to be developed. Coaching or other facilitative practice would be more suitable to do this.

My advice would be to work with the grain, identify people's strengths and develop those. EQ is not the lesser of the two "measures". Nor is IQ defective in some way. I would argue that EQ is by far the most powerful in the long run and that that is what counts in leadership.

robin

posted September 23, 2008

A good leader has to have a combination of a high IQ and a high EQ. A person having just one of them or none of them can not prove to be a good leader. A high EQ indicates the social competence of the person concerned and a high IQ indicates his technical competence.

posted September 23, 2008

I am thinking back to some of the people for whom I've worked and whom I respected as leaders. Their IQ is usually evident but their EQ is what makes them great leaders.

I'm thinking of some of my employers who have taken that tiny amount of time to ask me how things were going, or even stopped to help me out. The leaders who knew that I would not call them for backup or for their opinion unless I truly needed their input. I think of some of the gestures that I still remember from some of them that showed that they cared about me and my work. I wonder if these things are not innate in someone's character however and how they cannot be imparted by someone else.

There is one disadvantage to being highly gifted at sensing emotions and that is that you become too sensitive to make difficult decisions. If you have to let go someone on your staff for economic necessities, or make a decision that will have an effect on many staff members.

Then again, I remember a very gifted friend of mine say that high IQ without the ability to be humble and relate to others is not necessarily a gift. A true leader needs a balance of both EQ and IQ.

posted September 23, 2008

Hello Octavio,

Emotional Intelligence research has not yet reached its climax. Many contributions have been done by Goleman and Bar-on among others in this regard. EI is not a black box and it constitutes a number of competencies that, if some are available in someone, need polishing through training and development for proper utilization. These competencies are not limited to understanding one's self but exceed that to the ability of understanding and 'feeling' others. This is a very important competency that a leader should possess, however it is not the only one.

In this sense, EI is an important contributor to leadership but not a leader maker. For instance, a leader is expected to be perceived as trustful in some cultures, which has nothing to do with EI. Another thing, there are certain domains, such as engineering, where leadership needs more than EI. Just for the record, engineers are found to have less EI and higher IQ than other professions. So a manager with high EI possesses essential leadership prerequisites, however, other factors, such as his personality, the domain he works in… will also have a strong say in this matter.

Regards

posted September 24, 2008

I agree with Frank Feather that for true leader very important is emotional stability - it will be very important to improve psychological side of him ..:) If he can mange his emotions and use this in contancts with people then he will be very goog leader. Technic or machanics can you undestand but nature of people you will experience - the more experience you gained, the better you can mange them (in case of people not allways 2 + 2 equals 4 ..:)).

posted September 24, 2008

I think one of the most critical traits is dissonance tolerance, which may be a part of the EQ literature (did not have time to do a lit search, sorry!)...and the ability to enact executive (cognitive) functioning including abstraction and to formulate gestalt relationships...Dr J

posted September 24, 2008

I think a manager can be a good manager of the technocratic variety without significant emotional intelligence. But to me, leadership requires the ability to elicit loyalty, and that requires emotional intelligence.

posted September 26, 2008

Strong emotional intelligence, what is that? Leaders are not created, they are born.

posted September 28, 2008