Why Study Emotional Intelligence?

Haven't you wondered why some people have more success than others? In our personal quests to reach our potential and maximize our personal power and assets, we ponder what the mix is that makes for success in life - work and relationships both.

For many decades (perhaps since the Age of Reason), the Western World focused on cognitive intelligence, generally referred to as IQ. We assumed a high IQ was the ticket.

However, you may have noticed, as early researchers in the field did, that IQ is not the only answer, and sometimes not the most important part of the equation. Even an IQ-genius like Einstein states that there is something more going on - that his theories were leaps of intuition. Daniel Goleman is often misquoted as saying that EQ matters more than IQ, when what he actually said was "it CAN matter more." Haven't you found this to be true?

EQ draws on the continuing phenomenal new research on the human (triune) brain and what emotions are and how they operate -- neuro-affective science. Lust, for instance, comes from the reptilian brain (the oldest, and therefore the strongest), and for good living, we mediate this with the limbic brain (it would hurt my wife if I had an affair) and the neocortex (I could lose all my money in a divorce if I have an affair).

As we fumble around for definitions, please keep in mind, intuitively if you will, that EQ is one of those things that you know when you see it. Think for a moment now of someone you know who is successful (hopefully it is you), and toss around in your mind some of the things that make this person's life work. IQ, perhaps, and also perhaps flexibility, intentionality, ability to assess gut-feelings, ability to work with others, self-management. We even use words like "character," "patience," "maturity," "affability," "leadership," etc.

An operating definition of emotional intelligence is (wikipedia): "an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups." The definition is evolving, but keep in mind that you know it when you see it. For instance, I prefer to use the term "competencies."

Emotional Intelligence probably began with no less than Darwin, who pointed out the importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation. Slowly research turned to the non-cognitive aspects of "intelligence". As early as 1920. E. L. Thorndike at Columbia University coined the term "social intelligence" to refer to the ability to understand and manage other people.

Among early researchers in the field, Howard Gardner (Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences) used the terms "interpersonal intelligence" (to describe our ability to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people), and "intrapersonal intelligence" (the ability to understand oneself, to appreciate your feelings, fears and motivations). In 1985, Wayne Payne published a doctoral thesis entitled A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer were also key researchers in the field (1990). It is perhaps Daniel Goleman who popularized the term in 1995 with his best-seller, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.

Is EQ better than IQ? See my video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7x8URq-lJI



Salovey and Mayer have a good working definition of emotional intelligence: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth". Four categories that make sense are: (1) perceiving emotions, (2) using emotions, (3)understanding emotions; and (4) managing emotions.

A movie that illustrates concepts of emotional intelligence is Orson Welles' powerful "The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice." In this case, it is an example of emotional intelligence gone bad. This is, of course, Shakespeare's tragedy, Othello, and from this came Verdi's magnificent opera, "Otello" which we also consider. The place of music in emotional intelligence can hardly be underestimated, BTW, and of the great arts in general. See VIVO PER LEI.

In the beginning of the story of Otello, we see a man at the height of his power. [Bear in mind that the definition of a Shakespearean tragedy is that the hero is undone by "a character flaw" not by some external event (such as war or illness)]. Otello was a general, at the top of his game, with a successful career, and a loving marriage to the beautiful Desdemona.

At the end of the movie (play, opera) we see a man who has destroyed his life, killed his wife, and proceeds to kill himself. The aria Niun mi Tema is one of the most powerful arias in opera. It means "No one need fear me any more," and is the lament of a man who was undone by emotions.



What happened? Otello failed to promote a man (Iago) who then set about to do him in, and he did it without laying a hand on Otello. Iago understood Otello better than Otello understood himself, and he used this to bring about Otello's death and destruction at his own hands, manipulating him around like a puppet on a string. See my video on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgQOdtW1CI0.



Why study emotional intelligence? To paraphrase Sun Tzu, who was talking about warfare, understanding how people can be manipulated through emotions is as useful for those who wish to avoid having it done to them, as it is for those who wish to practice it.

If you stop and think about it, you can get in touch with times when your emotions either facilitated or blocked your ability to function well, make good decisions and/or use good judgment. Emotions, after all, give us information - it's what we do about the information that makes the difference. Maybe you drove away a lover by something you said in anger, or jumped in (or out of) the stock market on an emotional whim, or gave a poor speech because of anxiety, gave in to lust and ruined your marriage, or got angry and told off your boss and got fired, or talked back to a judge and ... See my video, "The Top 10 Things You Say After You've Been Hijacked (by the reptilian brain)" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmMSKLJo2Oc .



There are several assessment of emotional intelligence which vary in their terminology, but some of the competencies are resilience, flexibility, personal power, nonverbal communication, emotional expression, intentionality, authenticity, and empathy or compassion.

Should it be "empathy" or "compassion"? How DO you define emotional intelligence? These are largely academic matters. YOU know the quality that we struggle to define with "compassion" or "empathy" and YOU KNOW know that it - and the other competencies - matter. And the most important thing is that unlike IQ, EQ can be learned. I know. I teach it.

What's another good definition? Many of my clients have called emotional intelligence "the missing piece." And then there was one who said, "your course saved my mind."

Susan Dunn, www.susandunn.cc, sdunn@susandunn.cc . Susan coaches individuals and trains and certifies coaches internationally. She is the author of numerous ebooks (http://www.webstrategies.cc/ebooklibrary.html)and has been chosen Adult Dev. expert for the largest self help portal on the Internet.

To Jargon or Not: Do You Know When You Are?

The use of jargon ... emotional intelligence rides on SELF-AWARENESS. So the first point on this topic is -- do you know what jargon is, and when you are using it? From there, we go to: Do you know WHEN and WHY to use it.

This article I quote from thinks the topic is particularly relevant to written English. I think it is just as much so with spoken English. Words are words. "Jargon," to me, means the special words used within a certain field that include those in the field, and exclude those not in the field. When I was in marketing, I learned to say "two-sided, one up" when talking to the printer. The client would have no idea what I meant. In psychology, I learned to say "passive-aggressive personality." Those in the field know the parameters; the danger of that one is that people outside the field think they know what it means, and generally do not. But the same could be said for all jargon.

Another example of "jargon" is grammatical. In some fields, it is common to "verbalize" nouns. In others, it is not. In some fields, one must be grammatically correct. In others, it is gauche to care about how you write.

We proceed, with the addition that - the purpose of words is supposed to be to communicate. If what you say is not understood by the others, you have not communicated.

Here's a classic. Years ago the only thing PMS meant was the color charts people in marketing used when designing brochures, logos, etc. Since more people are color-blind than would like to admit, and since - well I just had lunch and that lime green shirt, sir, is NOT "teal." (and so it goes)

Well the acronym PMS has been pre-empted.

Some notes from "Are You on the Inside Or the Outside of Jargon?" by Jeanie Marshall, a colleague in personal development coaching:

Jargon is a powerful time saver, if you are inside the circle of people who know its meaning.

If you are outside that circle, though, the use of jargon can confuse, annoy, or exclude you.

The extent this is problematic to you will depend on how much you want to be in the inner circle.

Entering any new subculture requires getting acquainted with the vernacular.

Understanding acronyms, jargon, shortcuts, inside humor, and incomplete sentences are all part of getting acclimated to a subculture or inner circle.

It's a great article. Check it out and share your thoughts.

Marshall ends with an Einstein quote: "If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it." It was given to us in clinical psychology graduate school (ah, the jargon) as: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't know what you're talking about."

No offense to grandmothers, I am one. But I think it gets the point across more clearly. The point is, when you are talking to someone clearly outside your "field," it behooves you to be able to switch your language accordingly. They'll like you a whole lot more, and people relax when they like and trust someone, and then they can hear and learn.

If you are not aware of how you speak, and how it is different from how others speak, or other ways of speaking, you will be lost. And that's what emotional intelligence is all about. Communication is just one of the many facets that will improve, when you learn the meta-field of emotional intelligence.

Capisce?

I invite you to join me for coaching. Email me at sdunn@susandunn.cc .

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.

New Year's Resolution: Stop Annoying Other People

MORE ON NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

New Book about Emotional Intelligence and Coaching ... "What Got You Here Won't Get You There," by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter, soon to be released, and excerpted on businessweek.com. It's about leadership, but it's also about emotional intelligence and coaching.

One of Goldsmith's tips has to do with New Year's resolutions. Most of us make them. I don't, actually, because I'm a coach, and it's an ongoing thing with me that I model to clients. My "new year" doesn't start Jan. 1. It starts whenever I want it to; many times during a given year, in fact. New Year's day is as artificial as fake snow; it isn't even an astronomical event. So create your own any time you want to change.

Goldsmith believes in striving to be better human beings, we rarely resolve to do better in our interpersonal relationships.

Coaching clients are generally highly evolved and motivated, so I find most of my clients understand that the change has to be them, not the outer world. Goldsmith believes one thing crucial to good leadership is changing one or two interpersonal habits that annoy other people. Personal habits of your own, that is.

Fits with my definition of leadership which for someone as philosophical as I am, is eminently pragmatic: "A LEADER IS SOMEONE OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO FOLLOW." Want to follow. It's a feeling word. If you're brilliant, dedicated, highly-trained, highly credentialed, and know something I want to learn, but every time I get around you, you demean me ... I'll go "follow" someone else, thank you kindly.

In his book, Goldsmith outlines 20 habits that rub people the wrong way and tells how to break them.

Here are two:

ANNOYING HABIT NO. 1: CLINGING TO THE PAST

That's why I'm a coach. People have always loved to tell me their problems. After many years of this, in the workplace, I had an "ah hah" moment one day. Someone had come to me yet again to explain another person's behavior, and I blurted out, "I can tell you why, I can tell you all about their issues (I have an advanced degree in clinical psychology, plus am keen about figuring other people out), but you're still going to have to deal with them.

I can tell you why Fred 'bites people's heads off', he gives off clues about his childhood and the nature of his parents and of his brain and nervous system like a honeycomb oozes honey, but YOU are still going to have to deal with him trying to bite your head off. In fact it is a mistake for you to "understand" it if it means just sitting there and tolerating it. (Take my "How to Handle Difficult People" course and learn more about this.)

The same goes for your own "bad habits."

Emotional Intelligence is keen on this as well. I don't care why you're angry and throwing a tantrum. Just don't throw it at me. It may be a reason, but it should not be an excuse. Goldsmith's example is listening to someone nadder on about their father and mother and finally tossing a quarter at the man (a coaching client, I presume) and saying, "Call someone who cares."

One of the examples I give is about the young woman who popped into my office one day and said, "I'm going to be a real bear today. I'm PMSing."

"Not to me, you're not," I said.

PMS is no excuse for bad behavior any more than your past is an excuse for bad behavior.

Emotional intelligence shows you what else to do with your anger, joy, fear, etc. It's a choice, you know.

The point, says Goldsmith, according to this book review, is if you want to change the future, understanding won't get you there.

Not an original thought, of course. It's Einstein rephrased: You can't solve the problem on the same plane where it was created. (Albert Einstein)

ANNOYING HABIT NO. 2: REFUSING TO EXPRESS REGRET

Goldsmith frames it as losing face, essentially. Many people are highly invested in never being wrong it's true, and here we have a reframing of "would you rather be right than in relationship".

"It feels humiliating to seek forgiveness," Goldsmith says, "because we think it suggests subservience. We believe that apologizing forces us to cede power when, in reality, it's a great control tactic."

Goldsmith feels that "apologizing turns adversaries into allies, even servants. It is one of the most powerful and resonant gestures in the human arsenal--almost as powerful as a declaration of love."

In emotional intelligence, we look further than that. Being adamantly and relentlessly self-forgiving is a component of emotional intelligence. It frees you and it can keep you alive, I mean physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. We forgive not from altruism, but for our own health ... so we don't continue feasting on the skeleton, as the theologian put. Anger and resentment are delicious, but the skeleton at the feast is you.

Goldsmith reframes forgiving, apologizing, as forcing everyone to let go of the past.

Would that it were so. But to do this, YOU must be willing to accept the apology and move forward. The apology doesn't do it (can someone apologize for an affair? for running over your dog in the driveway?) ; YOU do.

It's hard to swallow your bile, and Goldsmith gives a great example: a young woman in a Fortune 100 company who was smart and had been brought in to bring about change. Everyone loved her except one of her peers, who viewed her as "arrogant" and "felt she didn't respect the company's history and traditions."

Goldsmith suggested that she apologize to this man, and scripted the apology for her to say, including that she had been disrespectful of the company's history and traditions.

Goldsmith believes there's magic in this process.

I picture this particular one as a scenario between a young adult and their middle-aged parent. From time-to-time I have a client who INSISTS that they cannot move on in their life until their parent APOLOGIES to them for not being there/favoring their sibling/leaving their mother/not sending them to college/'making them' be a lawyer instead of a pianist/never remembering their birthday/making them eat spinach.

What bothers me about this scenario is that the parent could equally demand an apology for keeping them all night/having ADHD/getting pregnant outside of wedlock/flunking out of the college they'd already paid $40,000 for/marrying someone from another religion or culture and messing up family get-togethers/inconveniencing their life with ashthma ... Except that in this society, we expect parents to parent, that is to "serve."

I had a client once who believed she was fat, at the age of 40, because of something her father did. But you see, her father is not there now shoveling mashed potatoes into her face. That's victimology. I'm going to write a book about this apology from the parent.

Goldsmith says apologies are a catalyst ... "how individuals change, teams improve, and companies become world-beaters. "

If you want to become even more successful in 2007, start by letting go of the past and learning to say: "I'm sorry."

Aren't those great? I bet there are more great habits to bust in that book. I'll be waiting for it come out.

Read the book excerpt on businessweek.com, HERE.