When Dan Goleman wrote Emotional Intelligence more than a decade ago, the concept was just a speculative theory. Not anymore, writes Lynnette Hoffman
When Dan Goleman wrote Emotional Intelligence more than a decade ago, the concept was just a speculative theory. Not anymore, writes Lynnette Hoffman
The business case [for emotional intelligence] is getting stronger and stronger,” says author Dan Goleman. “It’s far stronger than when I wrote the book in 1995 and stronger than when I wrote the follow-up book in 1998. There has been an explosion of well-designed studies that show the different ways EI can be effective.”
Emotional Intelligence (EI) means different things to different people, according to Paul Power, a director with Hay Group. “Some say it is a characteristic of people similar to intellectual ability or creativity, while others believe it is simply applying our intelligence to the emotional components of our lives,” he says. Goleman regards EI as an intelligent use of emotions that is reflected in behaviour when responding, rather than reacting, to situations, according to Power.
Goleman maintains that emotional intelligence is ten times more important for success than IQ and technical skills combined, Power says, adding that Goleman is really referring to emotional competence. “Although we might not agree completely with that statement, there is now a collection of research studies showing the importance of acting in an emotionally intelligent manner, especially when in leadership roles.”
He gives the example of top teams that are more effective when their leaders and their members display a wider repertoire of emotionally intelligent behaviours. Another example can be seen in partners in service firms, who demonstrate a critical mass of the emotional competencies, and as a result, add more incremental profit per year than those who act differently. “Organisations whose leaders demonstrate emotional competence have higher levels of engagement and staff morale,” he says.
But is it possible to assess how emotionally intelligent individuals are and then create interventions that bring about genuine changes? According to Goleman, the answer is a resounding yes. He points to several studies that echo his point. One study tracked MBA students at Case Western University who were put through a best practice program to improve their emotional intelligence in a targeted area, such as effective listening. “What they found was that the students improved significantly – and the results didn’t just improve right after – the improvements lasted as long as seven years,” Goleman says.
Another study tracked financial advisors at American Express whose managers completed an emotional competence training program and compared them with an equal number whose managers had not received additional training. During the year following training, the advisors with trained managers grew their businesses by 18.1 per cent compared to 16.2 per cent for those whose managers were untrained.
In another study that recently appeared in a peer reviewed journal, Johnson & Johnson had divisions around the world nominate a total of 358 high potential leaders – and then gave 1,400 employees a 180 question survey that measured competencies associated with leadership performance – including emotional intelligence. No one was told the reasons why they were being surveyed. The result? The highest performing managers had significantly more “emotional competence” than other managers.
“There’s probably been more research on emotional intelligence than any other leadership theory, and the rate at which it is taking place is faster than any other theory. Much of that has been in the last five years,” Goleman says.
Indeed, Rutgers University professor Cary Cherniss sites 19 case studies in his paper The Business Case for Emotional Intelligence. And the website EI Consortium is brimming with high-ranking academics who have completed studies of their own.
Still, assessing and developing emotional intelligence continues to pose considerable challenges.
There are three main ways to assess EI, all with vocal proponents and detractors, and all with their own limitations, says Cherniss, who is also Chairman of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organisations.
The MSCEIT is an ability-based model that measures a person’s potential emotional intelligence using pictures and scenarios to see how they respond (see also this issue’s Road Test, p25). The responses are measured against what a panel of experts have determined is the emotionally intelligent response. It doesn’t depend on self reporting or opinions from colleagues, so it is often seen as more objective, but some say the test is limited by the fact that it only measures a person’s potential, and not whether they actually put their skill to use.
The Emotional Competency Inventory is a multi-rater measurement tool that provides 360 degree feedback. Its strength lies in its ability to measure how others perceive the candidate’s emotional intelligence. But that means, however, that the results can be skewed by office politics as well as concerns over how the data will be used.
The Emotional Quotient Inventory is used more than any other assessment tool. It is self-reported and therefore the easiest to conduct, Cherniss says.
But critics say the test relies too heavily on personality attributes, and measures self esteem, confidence and extroversion more than emotional intelligence. It has also been argued that those who lack emotional intelligence have more difficulty accurately assessing their own abilities in that regard, and can tend to overestimate themselves.
“Rather than think about multiple tools, it is preferable to think of multiple raters,” according to Power. “Because self-awareness is the core of emotional intelligence, and people without self-awareness tend to be unaware of their own lack, self assessments are not the most appropriate way to evaluate a person’s EI. Indeed, there is a tendency for many people to either under or overestimate their own emotional competence.”
While this is not true for everybody, Power says women tend to underrate their own capacity, while men tend to overrate theirs. At the same time, he adds it is potentially dangerous to rely on a single measure for any assessment of human characteristics. “Such assessments should take account of as many sources of evidence as possible, including observation of behaviour at work (and perhaps elsewhere).”
There are other challenges as well. Many experts say the term Emotional Intelligence has lost it’s meaning, making it particularly confusing for HR practitioners trying to wade through piles of conflicting opinions.
“Every trainer, coach or consultant is offering their old materials in a new wrapping which they label ‘EQ’training. That’s because EQ has come to mean anything that is not IQ. Most of these courses and theories have nothing to do with either emotions or intelligence,” says David Caruso, co-developer of the MSCEIT tool and author of The Emotionally Intelligent Manager.
Once you’ve measured EI, the next step is to put interventions in place to teach people to improve their emotional intelligence. And as you might expect, more challenges are engendered here. Sometimes organisations, for example, have unrealistic expectations of how long it will take to register improvements.
“EI training requires more than a half-day workshop. It takes time, follow up and practice,” Caruso says. “Our training typically involves exercises and ongoing support. We also ground the theory in the everyday lives of people.”
Goleman also warns that the success of EI training depends to a large degree on the quality of the coach. “It is buyer beware when it comes to coaching. It’s not a field that’s regulated – it’s not like cardiology where people have to pass examinations before they can practice. There’s a great deal of spotty variation between coaches and I’d be as careful hiring a coach as I would if I was hiring an accountant or a lawyer – and almost as careful as if I was choosing a dentist,” Goleman says.
Case studies in EI
The US Air Force used an assessment tool called the EQ-I to select recruiters, their "frontline HR personnel". It found that the most successful recruiters scored significantly higher in the emotional intelligence competencies of assertiveness, empathy, happiness, and emotional self-awareness. The Air Force also found that by using emotional intelligence to select recruiters, it increased its ability to identify successful recruiters by nearly threefold. The immediate gain was an annual of $3 million.
Source: Cary Cherniss, Rutgers University
Australia Post began integrating emotional intelligence assessments and interventions into the recruitment and development of employees two years ago. In the development program employees undergo a six-month emotional intelligence coaching program designed to improve key leadership capabilities. On average, employees' emotional intelligence increased by 40 per cent and their leadership capabilities by 10 per cent. Feedback from employees who have gone through the program indicates that it has also improved their job satisfaction, productivity and relationships with colleagues.
Source: Ben Palmer, director of research and development, Genos
Dan Goleman’s five domains of EI
1. Knowing your emotions
2. Managing your own emotions
3. Motivating yourself
4. Recognising and understanding other people's emotions
5. Managing relationships or managing the emotions of others
