LEADERSHIP AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Associate Professor Silvia Medinschi, PhD

Assistant Nicoleta Buzilă, PhD Candidate

Pre-assistant Manuela Stăicuţ

“Tibiscus” University of Timişoara

Faculty of Economic Science

1/A Daliei Street, 300558, Timisoara, Romania

Phone: +40-256-202931, Fax: +40-256-202930

E-mail: medinschisilvia@yahoo.com

Abstract: Emotional intelligence has been identified as a key leadership skill for the future. People who rise to the top of their field—whether it’s psychology, law, medicine, engineering or banking—aren’t just good at their jobs. They’re affable, resilient and optimistic, suggests a growing store of studies on professional leaders.

In other words, it takes more than traditional cognitive intelligence to be successful at work. It also takes 'emotional intelligence,' the ability to restrain negative feelings such as anger and self-doubt, and instead focus on positive ones such as confidence and congeniality, claims an emerging school of behavioral thought.

Key words: emotional intelligence, leadership skill, empathy

House defines "leadership" organizationally and narrowly as "the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members" (House, R. J., 2004, page 15). Organizationally, leadership directly impacts the effectiveness of costs, revenue generation, service, satisfaction, earnings, market value, share price, social capital, motivation, engagement, and sustainability.

Some can also characterize leadership by the period of the authority, as in "During the 1940s Russia was under Stalinist leadership".

In some languages the term for a leader and the term for the principle of leadership have very different meanings. Furthermore, note the different connotations of a synonym of the word "leader" adopted from the German: the word Fuhrer, and its accompanying ideas on the Fuhrerprinzip. Leadership can have a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading" (the action) usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies.

Several types of entities may provide or exhibit leadership, actual or potential, including:

Ø A person in a position or office of authority, such as a President or a chairperson;

Ø A person in a position or office associated with expertise, skill, or experience, such as a team leader, a ship's captain, a chief engineer, a chief, or a parent;

Ø A group or person in the vanguard of some trend or movement, as in fashion trend-setters;

Ø A group of respected people, (called a "reference group" by sociologists) such as business commentators or union spokespersons;

Ø A product that influences other product offerings in a competitive marketplace.

Leadership can come from an individual, a collective group of leaders, or even from the disincarnate - if not mystical - characteristics of a celebrity figurehead (compare hero).

A front-runner in a sprint may "lead" the race, but does not have a position of "leadership" if he does not have the potential to influence others in some way. Thus one can make an important distinction between "being in the lead" and the process of leadership. Leadership implies a relationship of power — the power to guide others.

To lead one must build a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each other’s needs. Leaders accomplish this by knowing why people may react favorably to a situation in environment A, but get frustrated or disillusioned in environment B.

When leaders change their actions in accordance with their awareness of what those actions really mean, they affect the emotional and perceptive affects on a group.

It is a strong link between leadership and the idea of management. Some regard the two as synonymous, and others consider management a subset of leadership. If one accepts this premise, one can view leadership as:

· Centralized or decentralized;

• Broad or focused;
• Decision-oriented or morale-centered;

· Intrinsic or derived from some authority;

Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely consists of leadership applied to business situations; or in other words: management forms a sub-set of the broader process of leadership. They put it this way: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason. Management is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is paramount." (Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K., 1982, page 3)

However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, implying that an effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate management skills. One clear distinction could provide the following definition:

· Management involves power by position.

· Leadership involves power by influence.

Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries, concerned about substance; while managers he views as planners who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups:

· Managers administer, leaders innovate

• Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
• Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
• Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
• Managers maintain, leaders develop
• Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
• Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
• Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
• Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
• Managers imitate, leaders originate
• Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
• Managers copy, leaders show originality

Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the task".

Emotional intelligence sets apart good leaders. [Daniel, L. (14 June 1999) “Intelligent managers in tune with workplace stresses”]

Emotional Intelligence has become a vital part of how today's leaders meet the significant challenges they face. Emotional Intelligence can help leaders in an evermore-difficult leadership role, one that fewer and fewer people seem capable of fulfilling. And in the middle of the “Talent War”, especially at the highest levels in organizations, emotional intelligence can give developing leaders a competitive edge.

In this article, we'll take a look at:

· How the importance of Emotional Intelligence was recognized

• Why Emotional Intelligence is needed in Leadership
• The new demands leaders have to meet

· How to use Emotional Intelligence in developing leadership

In 1980 Reuven Baron was researching the qualities that lead to success. He showed there was much more than traditional Intelligence or IQ and developed the concept of Emotional Intelligence – the Emotional Quotient or EQ was born.

In 1985 an influential psychologist called Howard Gardener also challenged the current view of intelligence and proposed 7 multiple intelligences, which included social intelligence.

The idea that success in both life and in work (at least where managing people is a significant factor) became highly credible and organizations have recognized how their best leaders and managers need to develop their understanding of themselves and others.

In 1995 Daniel Goleman published the best seller “Emotional Intelligence” which has done a great deal for popularizing the concept.

Emotional Intelligence does not fit the classic historical models of leadership. The latter are usually associated with great figures of military history and conjure up charismatic and sometimes despotic images. However, people often use the same language for leadership today - bold, brave and tough with a strong sense of purpose and resolve. However, this does not fit today's needs, because:

· Today’s workforce does not accept the autocratic style often adopted by leaders following historical models of leadership;

• Leadership has had to evolve to match a growing sense of democracy and independence in the workforce;

· Employees now have far more options and choices than the foot soldiers of yesterday.

Leaders now need to manage and lead an “empowered” workforce and go beyond the consultative, co-operative and democratic styles of today. These new demands include:

· Consultation and involvement – but leaders still get criticized for not having and communicating a compelling vision and purpose;

• Autonomy and freedom – but leaders are still expected to take full responsibility when things go wrong;
• Opportunities for growth, challenge and glory - but leaders must be on hand to coach and mentor us so that we develop our potential;

· Inclusion and team spirit – but we still want our leaders to give us individual recognition and acknowledgement.

However, there are not enough talented (i.e.: super-human) individuals who can meet all these demands.

There are now a number of models and questionnaires aimed at measuring Emotional Intelligence, often based on self-report questionnaires. However, this approach has obvious limitations in identifying levels of self-awareness – how can you be aware of what you are not aware of!

The assessment of EI in leadership is complex. The use of simple self-report questionnaires to explore self-awareness has significant limitations.

Recent research by Six Seconds’ Institute for Organizational Performance finds that scores on the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Test (SEI) predict 54% of critical success factors. This white paper explains the power and importance of this claim.

In his best-selling 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman reported that research shows that conventional measures of intelligence – IQ – only account for 20% of a person’s success in life.

For example, research on IQ and education shows that high IQ predicts 10 to 25% of grades in college. The percentage will vary depending on how we define success.

Nonetheless, Goleman’s assertion begs the question: What accounts for the other 80%?

Goleman and others have asserted that at least some of the missing ingredient lies in emotional intelligence – the capacity to acquire and apply emotional information. Conducting validation research on the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Test (SEI), the research team assessed the importance of emotional intelligence as measured by the SEI.

The international study assessed 665 individuals ranging in ages from 18 to 65, slightly more women than men, education from some high-school education to post-graduate degrees, and a wide range of occupations and levels from entry-level to executive.

By way of external criteria to validate the SEI against, “success factors” included a wide range of measures, namely Personal Effectiveness (achieving results), Relationship Quality (networking, support), General Health (physical health and stress management) and Quality of Life (life satisfaction).

The eight scales of the SEI were analyzed to test if high scores would predict high scores on each of the success factors. The regression analysis (forward stepwise selection) found that 54.79% of the variability in these success factors combined are predicted by the SEI. The variability of each individual success factor is also predicted as shown in Figure 1. These findings make the SEI one of the strongest measures of emotional intelligence available in the market today.

The SEI is the only test measuring Six Seconds' Model of Emotional Intelligence. The Model consists of eight core competencies divided into three key pursuits. Developed to help people put the theory of emotional intelligence into action in their leadership and general well being in life, the three parts are easy to learn and apply. The competencies are:

Ø Know Yourself (self-awareness)

o Enhance Emotional Literacy: recognize and appropriately express emotion

o Recognize Patterns: recognize reactions and choices

Ø Choose Yourself (self-management)

o Apply Consequential Thinking: evaluate the costs and benefits of choices before acting

o Navigate Emotions: learn from and transform feelings

o Increase Optimism: identify multiple options for changing the future

o Engage Intrinsic Motivation: build internal energy and drive

Ø Give Yourself (self-direction)

o Increase Empathy: respond appropriately to others’ feelings

o Pursue Noble Goals: align daily choices with principles and purpose

Figure 1. The variability of individual success factor

Part of the beauty of the predictive results is that of a different combination of the eight competencies explains the variation in each success factor. This points to the distinct qualities of the SEI depending on the external criteria that are important to individuals and groups.

Seconds EQ model integrates leading thinking on this emerging science into a practical, useable, memorable structure.

Six Seconds is a California-based not-for-profit corporation with the mission of helping all people learn to know themselves, choose themselves, and give themselves. Six Seconds provides training, consulting, and innovative tools for professionals facilitating individual and organizational change. Six Seconds consultants are available on every continent with offices in the US, Singapore, and Italy.

Using this model we wish, in the very next future, to apply it in some big enterprises to evaluate the leader’s emotional intelligence. Why that?

Because a leader has to have emotional intelligence to align personal and subordinate goals to accomplish company goals, James A. Belasco and Ralph C Stayer (1993) suggest four responsibilities a leader must implement at all levels of an organization. First, transfer ownership for work to the people who do the work. Second, create the environment where the transfer of ownership can take place, where each person wants to be responsible for his or her own performance. This entails painting a clear picture of what the company believes great performance is, for the company and each person; focusing individuals on the few great performance factors; developing in each person the desire to be responsible for his or her performance; aligning organization systems and structures to send a clear message as to what is necessary for great performance; engaging each individual’s heart, mind and hands in the business of the business; and energizing people around the business focus. Third, develop individual capability and competence. Fourth, create conditions in the organization that challenge every person to continually learn, including him or her self. These four principals align personal and company goals through emotional intelligence.

References:

1. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Premission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

2. Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

3. Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

4. House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004

5. Perrella, J.E (1999) The Importance of Working Together: Individuals add; team players multiply. Vital Speeches of the Day; New York, City News Publishing Company.