‘Emotional intelligence’ is a term that has been bandied about for several years, but when properly employed the concept can be a very useful workplace tool. Karalyn Brown looks at the evolution of the concept and how organisations are putting it into practice
‘Emotional intelligence’ is a term that has been bandied about for several years, but when properly employed the concept can be a very useful workplace tool. Karalyn Brown looks at the evolution of the concept and how organisations are putting it into practice
Ask about emotional intelligence (EI) and you’ll be greeted with a variety of responses. “Is it that warm and fuzzy HR group hug stuff?”“People should just get on with their jobs.”“All outstanding leaders are high in it.”
EI, its influence on workplace and leadership success and its use as a tool to measure and develop employees, is a concept that still generates debate for a number of reasons. EI challenges the maxim that emotions are best left out of the workplace. Then there’s the element of basic human fear – of emotions and confrontation. The plethora of self-help books and the many self-assessment tools that pop up on the internet make it harder to build a case for its use as a legitimate business tool.
What is EI and what can it determine?
Academics have varying descriptions of and ways to assess EI. US psychologists Salovey and Mayer first conceptualised emotional intelligence in 1990. Daniel Goleman popularised the idea in his 1995 bestselling book Emotional Intelligence. Claims that it could be “as powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ”caused an explosion of interest.
Since then the body of academic research has grown, focussing in particular on EI’s ability to identify and develop effective leaders. Academics have grouped work in three ways: ability based, competency based and the social or non-cognitive based.
Salovey and Mayer’s ability model defines EI as intelligence in the traditional sense – as an ability to recognise emotions and their relationships, and the ability to reason and solve problems on their basis. Goleman’s competency-based model considers the personal and social capabilities of outstanding performers. BarOn’s non-cognitive model is broader. It defines EI as an array of non-cognitive abilities, competencies and skills that influence the ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands.
Recently, Genos’ Ben Palmer and a team from Swinburne assessed six popular models including MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso) and the BarOn Emotional Quotient inventory (EQi) against Australian workplace norms. They defined the concept to cover recognising and expressing emotions, understanding others’ emotions, emotional reasoning, managing emotions in the self and others, and controlling emotions.
In other research they linked emotional intelligence to successful leadership styles, high subordinate ratings of leadership effectiveness and levels of management. As a result, they claim it accounts for 36 per cent of variance in leadership success.
Why use EI in the workplace?
The workplace is changing. The values of Generation X are contributing to a more people-focused style of leadership. This group is motivated by the relationships they have in the workplace and EI seems like a logical framework to help build these relationships, EI proponents say. Others claim it’s simply obvious.
Emotions influence all aspects of our lives. It’s impossible to separate them from work. They play a large role in how others perceive us through our tone of voice, facial expressions and body language. Emotions can influence the decisions we make and the way we behave – such as avoiding a colleague because ‘they’re having a bad day’.
The success of Goleman’s book and the commercialisation of EI that followed may have contributed to questions about EI’s use as a legitimate business tool. While academic research has quietly moved forward, impressions of EI may have not. And while academic research presents differing definitions and measurement, there is also some debate about what aspects of emotional intelligence are inherent or can be taught.
Arguments against the use of EI also focus on the reliability of the many tests in the marketplace, with common questions about issues such as their construction and legal defensibility.
Australia Post tests executive EI
Over the past six months, Carla Acuna, HR manager for the finance and services division of Australia Post, has piloted a leadership coaching program for senior finance executives as part of an overall development plan. Acuna used the Genos emotional intelligence assessment and development program (which is based on research by Swinburne University).
Executives underwent a detailed 360 degree and leadership effectiveness assessment and were then given feedback in a one-on-one session. Over the following months executives received individual coaching in a series of modules targeting self awareness, awareness of others’ behaviour, emotions in decision making, securing buy-in for decisions, influencing and generating commitment from people, effective performance management and feedback, dealing effectively with high work demands and coaching and mentoring others. Throughout the program Acuna provided hands on encouragement and support to the participants. After the coaching, the executives then were reassessed on the 360 degree and leadership effectiveness assessment.
“We saw 70 per cent behavioural change,” Acuna says. “The biggest improvement was in getting buy-in for decisions.” Anecdotal feedback was also positive. “Our accountants said one of the biggest changes they’d seen were better relationships, even in their personal lives.”
The true merit of a program is whether initially sceptical participants become advocates. For the last session of group coaching, “executives actually volunteered to talk about what the whole EI journey meant to them – bean counters actually standing in front of peers, their manager and HR saying ‘this is what I went through’,” Acuna says. “It was very touching to hear.”
In choosing an external partner, Acuna says this “involves the baring of the soul, so they [participants] need to be connected with that person”. Equally as important when using an external consultant is to have a strong internal change consultant or HR driver who understands the program. They need to understand “when to intervene, when to leave alone and who to support. This is more than the role of an HR admin person,” Acuna says. If the program is new, it’s also important that the internal HR partner has the backing of a sponsor or executive and a group of people “willing to take the risk”.
In building a business case for the program, Acuna took a practical approach. Given the scepticism attached to EI, Acuna first organised a presentation from Swinburne to establish credibility. The presentation wasn’t a strong sales pitch, but instead focused on practicality and consultation, with solid research to assist in building credibility.
The positioning and labelling of the program was also a factor in gaining support from those within the business who consider “HR a little airy fairy”, Acuna says. “We explained the aim of the program was to help them deal with the increasing challenges of leadership. We called the program ‘Future Leadership’.”
Acuna’s business case was helped by her belief in the Genos methodology and her own experience with EI. She wasn’t “implementing something she hadn’t done herself”. To help build the future business case the first program was run as a pilot, but it has been so successful that others within Australia Post have contacted Acuna to run EI workshops in their own teams.
Holden hones leadership EI
Gwyneth Graham, Holden’s HR director, organisational capability, uses EI as one method of assessment in two leadership development programs. Holden runs a series of leadership programs for senior management through Mt Eliza Business School using the Hays ECI tool. The aim is to introduce leaders to the concept of emotional intelligence, to help them understand their own level of EI, how it impacts leadership and to formulate an action plan to develop it.
Holden also uses EI assessments in development centres, which provide stretch development for high potential leaders. Employees go through a day-and-a-half assessment centre covering role plays, in-trays, behavioural interviews along with a Genos 360 degree assessment. Coaches then use the results of the centre to work with individuals.
As the EI assessments are used as part of a broader assessment program, it’s difficult to isolate the results of the tool. “We know that the development centres in general are very effective,” Graham says. “We’re confident that they look at the complete picture of leadership, including emotional intelligence.”
Anecdotally, Graham has seen some impact within Holden, particularly in talent reviews where “we now talk about a much wider range of factors than before. Previously the conversation focussed on technical ability, while we now see emotional intelligence as a strong predictor of a person’s ability to take on more challenging leadership roles,” she says.
Graham selected the Genos tool for its Australia-based norms, because it isolated “pure EI attributes”and was suited to the one-on-one coaching of the development centre. She believes the Hays ECI was a broader tool covering “more aspects of leadership”and was better suited to a group application than Genos.
There were not significant issues in using the 360 EI tool, but Graham says this was because “it was used in the context of a lot of discussion in the organisation about leadership issues, including EI concepts and research”. She believes, however, that the acceptance of the tool was helped by combining it as part of an overall program of assessment.
Graham didn’t need to build an individual business case for the use of EI as it was one tactic used in an overall leadership development strategy. She recommends that EI tools not be used in isolation, but as part of a plan that links people development to business goals.
Can you prove ROI on EI?
As part of his PhD thesis, David Rosete, an organisational psychologist and part-time lecturer at the University of Wollongong, researched 120 senior managers in the public service and found strong links between emotional intelligence, performance review ratings and pay increases.
Rosete’s participants sat through the MSCEIT emotional intelligence test (Mayer, Salovey Caruso – where emotions are considered to guide thought). He also tested their personality traits using a 16-factor inventory and their cognitive ability using the Weschler test. Rosete tested the results of these assessments against the senior managers’ performance and pay review scales from an independently audited 360 degree performance management system. (Staff rated three in this system are fully effective, four are superior and five are exceptional.)
He found emotional intelligence can predict higher performers beyond cognitive ability and personality. Additionally, the leaders who rated four and five and who received higher pay increases, were stronger in emotional intelligence as described by the MSCEIT ability model – particularly in the areas of perceiving emotions, managing emotions and emotions facilitating thought.
Concluding EI thoughts
While academics explore and refine the idea of what it means to be emotionally intelligent and how that translates to career and leadership success, the best advice is to understand what you have and ‘research the research’if you are considering using it for your organisation.
Take a step back from any consultant’s claims and check the questions their researchers asked, how they gathered their data, the criteria they used to validate the model and the population sample they tested. Make sure this is a close match to your own needs.
It’s also important \to realise that EI has its detractors. Consider their concerns and factor this into all communication strategies – from building a business case to rolling out a program. In short, apply some IQ and EI to EI.
