Collaborative Intelligence at Work

Great new article on emotional intelligence on Newsweek called "Building a Better Team."

The topic at hand is called "collaborative intelligence," sort of the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It's Marshall Goldsmith, author of What Got You Here Won't Get You There, (see Einstein quote - "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it") talking about his e-mail correspondence with Stephen Joyce, author of best seller Teaching an Anthill to Fetch: Developing Collaborative Intelligence @ Work - (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0978031202/susandunnmome-20).

Joyce refers to firemen fighting fires, platoons of soldiers in combat, sports teams ... sort of esprit de corps, teamwork, the effect when people are working effectively together, sharing information and all else needing sharing ... "united we stand, divided we fall."

Specifically he is talking about NOT getting bogged down in the nemesis of all -- "politics."

Especially interesting to me now as I am reading Peter the Great by Massie, who, when talking about the wars (specifically the war between Sweden and Russia), mentions how the Russians kept losing because initially their inexperienced soldiers acted like a mob (panicing and so forth) instead of with the rich discipline of the well-trained Swedes. And also, at the point I am now reading, that the Swedish demise was due to the failure of the commander to brief his sub-commanders before the battle -- because of jealousy and spite. The one commander couldn't stand the other, and just plain out didn't like to talk to him. So he didn't. And Massie faults King Charles XII for not knowing this about the two men's personalities.

Collaborative Intelligence -- Is this stuff new? Well, a better question to ask, given the business world's (and it's writer's) propensity for "reframing," especially with new acronymns, is does it work?

I think it is possible to raise the collective EQ by raising the EQs of its individual members, or possibly even A member. I have seen it happen. We are all too sadly aware that "one bad apple can spoil the bunch." After all, one of the comments I often get from those who take my DIFFICULT PEOPLE course is, "Now I see when I become the 'difficult person.'"

A few things from the article I especially liked:

Here are some of the most important characteristics of a team with high CQ:

• Is able to share the stress and strain evenly throughout the team.
• Achieves its objectives more through people and less through politics.
• Has a strong network of connection and support between its members. This accelerates learning, enabling the team's reactions to be rapid and responsive to challenges.
• Looks after its own: Individuals are not left to fend for themselves, and staff retention is high because people feel a strong sense of belonging

"Collaboration" sort of implies emotional intelligence. Without it, however, I would contend that the entity (business, group, committee, organization, squad, team) will tend not to operate like an anthill (which, after all gets the job done, by instinct) but rather, like a mob. Because ants have a rudimentary 'brain' and humans have 3 brains (and emotions), and are therefore capable of so much more, for good or for ill.

Bush Bids Farewell to Blair

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE NEWS

Bush Bids Farewell to Blair - http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=894182007
As Bush says goodbye to Blair, meeting with him for the last time in their official capacities, The Scotsman writes: 'Even detractors of the president concede he has a high "emotional intelligence" quotient, diffusing awkward questions with humour - a tactic deployed more articulately by Mr Blair.'


Meanwhile, NewScientist.com news service reports of a DEVICE THAT WARNS YOU IF YOU'RE BORING OR IRRITATING.

What took them so long? you ask. I have some people I'd like to send this too!

Assuming that we care, we rely on social cues and emotional intelligence to alert us to when we are doing this to others, and autistic individuals lack the ability to read these cues and that's how this device will help.

Called an "emotional social intelligence prosthetic device," it is being developed at MIT. A small camera will be pinned to the side of a pair of glasses which will then be connected to software that can read the emotions these images show. If they aren't "engaging" the other person, the computer will vibrate.

It can supposedly show whether someone is agreeing, disagreeing, concentrating, thinking, unsure or interested. It tracks such things as "movements of the eyebrows, lips and nose, and tracks head movements such as tilting, nodding and shaking."

So far the machine is reading it right 64% of the time with regular folks, and 90% with actors. The article did not say how they were assessing what the people's emotions were -- an interesting point.

One of the problems the researchers also face is training autistic people to look at the faces of the people to whom they are speaking ... an interesting point as well.

If all this makes you think about nonverbal communication, empathy and emotional intelligence, and you'd like to learn more, take the EQ course - www.susandunn.cc/eqcourse.htm . You will find it fascinating to improve your emotional intelligence.

Timothy Bickmore, of Northeastern University in Boston, evidently a dedicated teacher, is quoted as saying: "I would love it if you could have a computer looking at each student in the room to tell me when 20 per cent of them were bored or confused."