Challenging questions for Hilary Clinton and our society in an emotional intelligence meets politics moment — a Newsweek article (Hillary Tears Up: A Muskie moment, or a helpful glimpse of ‘the real Hillary’?) asks if Hilary’s display of emotion will be seen as a sign of weakness, or of honesty? And in any case, the emotion trumps the facts:
No one will remember the hour of detailed policy talk that preceded Clinton’s emotional moment
Will Americans confirm that:
anyone who needed to carry Kleenex in her purse was unfit for the highest office in the land
or will the conclusion come that emotion helps
a candidate who is seen as aloof and too tightly scripted appear more vulnerable, more human and more appealing
What do we really want in a leader? This brings up so many questions about trust and emotion — do we trust people who hide their emotions or show them? Do we prefer “false strength” to authenticity? I suspect that genuineness+moderate strength goes further than appearance of big strength.
I also enjoyed reading comments on this video on youtube – which raise the question: Was it real anyway?
What do you think? Fake or real tears? Weak or strong?
Joshua Freedman
Part of the Six Seconds' founding team, Josh is one of the world leading experts on emotions, change, and performance. One of a handful of people with proven experience creating organizational performance through EQ, Freedman leads a world-wide network of EQ change agents. (sd)
I found this genuine, but regret that implicit in what she said were subtle put downs relating to rival’s ‘lack of preparation and readiness’.