The 2010 Workplace Issues Report captures input from 279 leaders and employees from a variety of sectors around the globe.  They said…

65% of the pressing issues are on the people side, 35% on the financial/technical side (but in 2007 it was 76/24). Even in the current economy, the people issues were seen as 30% more significant than the technical/financial issues.
The most pressing challenge today is maintaining a healthy culture under intense economic pressure. Respondents identify several aspects of leadership as the key to this, especially vision, feedback, and communication.
Getting and keeping good people – especially “people people” – will make the difference.	(graphic made with Wordle.net)
89% of respondents said feelings are highly important or essential in solving the problems they face.
Only 8% of respondents report that they’re fully trained to deal with the issues they’re seeing.
92% see the value of EQ — but only 33% say their organizations do likewise. Those that do see EQ as critical for their culture. Hospitality, T&D, Education, and Finance lead the way — Medical and Technology trail the pack.

Agree?  Disagree?  Take the survey yourself and ask 5 colleagues to do likewise.

To receive the complete report for free, just fill in this form.

You’ll receive the PDF via email within moments. The email comes from “staff@6seconds.org” so please watch for that!

Enter this graphic code*
First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Organization
Role
Phone
* I agree that I will not distribute this document except for personal use †
Please subscribe me to Six Seconds newsletter
Comments

† Please feel free to make up to 10 copies; for larger quantities, please contact us for permission

♦

Updated Nov 15, 2009

Definitions and History of Emotional Intelligence

It all began about 2,000 years ago when Plato wrote, “All learning has an emotional base.” Since then, scientists, educators, and philosophers have worked to prove or disprove the importance of feelings. Unfortunately, for a large part of those two millenia, common thought was, “Emotions are in the way. They keep us from making good decisions, and they keep us from focusing.” In the last three decades, a growing body of research is proving just the opposite.

Read the rest of this entry »

I admit it’s a terrible habit – again sitting in a restaurant listening to the next table… but the guy was so loud I could hardly not!  Three people, “Joe” and 2 friends, Joe says he’s so glad to see them again and launches into a story.  Eventually says, “but I don’t want us to just talk about my stories…” and the proceeds to dominate the conversation for half an hour of virtually nonstop monologue.  Every once in a while the others manage to slip in a word but Joe grabs back the conversation.  It seems like Joe KNOWS he dominates and has at least a vague intention of sharing the stage, but doesn’t.

So:  Is Joe self-aware?

And, if he is, what’s missing?

Sometimes people talk about emotional intelligence as “paying attention to feelings,” which is nice but inadequate.  Maybe even useless.  We do need to ACCURATELY identify and understand feelings, but I contend that to be “intelligent” we also need to use that data effectively.  When we use mathematical intelligence we accurately identify the info and use it to come up with answers that solve problems.  How about when we use EQ?

(And, how about my admission of my terrible habit?)
♥

One of my triggers is a desire to “fight for my rights” if I sense that I’m not supported in my work.  My fight response may manifest subtly as a tenacious search for an “unavailable” library book or the dogged pursuit of information from a tight-lipped colleague.  But underneath my smiling mask, I’m angry and even a bit paranoid at my treatment.  Why is this book unavailable when I know interlibrary loan has hundreds of copies to share?  Previously, the librarian had seemed miffed at my voracious reading habit.  Are her curt responses a way to dissuade my extensive borrowing?  Or am I imagining this?   Just because I’m (somewhat) paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me…..

One of the many benefits of EI is that, knowing my patterns, I can question my assumptions and try to avoid overreacting to real or imagined threats.  While I mostly relate with patience and kindness to others, if I’m triggered, my distrust looms large.  Suddenly simple conversations become minefields.  I expect the worst and then….I get it.  Instead of peaceful and pleasant exchanges, I find that others are angry and unreasonable.  Why won’t they help me get what I need?

It’s remarkable to realize that even when I try to hide my fear or anger, others sense it and react.  Because we are all civilized humans, our squirmishes can be extremely subtle and happen in a microsecond.  We may be smiling but through tiny shifts of nonverbals and inflections, we’ll send a message covertly.  The true dimensions of our fight happen outside our awareness.  Then we can each feel innocent and victimized.

I’ve learned through much inner work that I can trust my intuitions.  I’m not crazy.  My librarian may indeed be thwarting my desires.  But even if she is, my inner reactions say more about my own psyche than the outward situation.  Why are my reactions to this so strong?  (No one else might see it, but I know I’ve been triggered.)   My book requests are important to me.  They represent a chance at learning and growth and advancement.  I’ve coached myself throughout this past year to not react too strongly when “Rita” seems to avoid my requests.  When she wouldn’t answer my emails, I went to her office and had a pleasant visit.  Another time, when she seemed upset, I brought cookies.  We’ve had great chats and my book crisis seemed solved–my patience rewarded.  But then I get another cryptic email and my anger and despair rush forward.

I’ll keep working on my reactions.  Rita may be slow to help, or maybe I continue to misread her communications.  Whatever the case, these events offer great stories for my training and a hefty opportunity to explore some “hot” wiring in my psyche.  And my discomfort?  A wise teacher once helped me see that my discomfort is a form of grief –in this case, grief from some past injustice.  She told me that if I could simply allow myself to feel this pain, i.e. to grieve, my feelings would dissipate and lose their hold.  A simple concept and so hard to do!  But she was right. As I feel these difficult emotions, they pass through me and I grow stronger.

I write to remind myself of what I already know.  To encourage myself to feel my grief when I want to wring Rita’s neck.  It’s a small thing, a library book, but the small moments can teach us the most.  Huge events can be too overwhelming.  Or we rationalize and say that our extreme reactions are justified because the issue is so big.

What small events push your buttons? Is there grief hiding under your anger?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what happens to our EQ competencies when we’re stressed or compromised. This came about after taking the SEI several months ago and then taking it again recently with dramatically different results. I thought about the ‘snapshot’ concept and tried to place my frame of mind the first time I took it. Upon reflection, I could think of quite a few reasons why the results might have been as surprising and low as they were the first time around, based on my state of mind and body and heart at the time. I could also imagine many reasons my results might be different the second time around (including actual growth of my EQ!)

I then had a productive debrief with another person where we did a combination of debriefing each other as well as discussing the process in general. We ended up delving into all the valuable information we can gain from seeing which parts of our EQ are actually compromised most when we find ourselves in a difficult time, either for the short or long term. What a great way to approach the tool! It completely changed my view of the first SEI I took. All of a sudden I saw this enormous opportunity to learn amazing and important things about myself from that first report.

Extrapolation? It’s important to realize all we can learn from the ‘down’ side of things if we can open our eyes and hearts and not be afraid to look deep inside.

I was reading an article the other day about IQ, an interview between Mark Dery and Steven Pinker (http://tinyurl.com/nxjjmx), and while I was incredibly interested in the topic, I couldn’t help feeling that the whole article was excessively wordy. With a background as a biologist, I am capable of wading through wordy articles and sometimes maybe it’s even necessary. Of course, the world of IQ discussion has a long and lengthy background mired in psychology and many other fields that bring the baggage of language into the discussion and in this particular case, given the topic, I think the use of detailed language may be appropriate.

Working to deconstruct language and make ideas accessible to all is sometimes an art form. All that aside, I also believe that there is a certain amount of prestige or credibility that often goes along with using big words and sounding important and it’s important to balance the two ideas.

In terms of EQ, selling the concept to people unfamiliar with it sometimes requires evidence, data and ‘proof.’ I hope we all continue to keep the field of EQ open and accessible to everyone by remaining careful with our choice of language. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this!

“…for leadership positions, emotional intelligence is more important than cognitive intelligence” – John Mackey, CEO – Whole Foods – Inc Magazine – July 2009

Here’s an excerpt:

Q: What traits should I look for when hiring for a leadership position?

A: My philosophy about this has definitely evolved over the years. I understand people a lot better today than I did 30 years ago. Back then, I was more impressed with people who were very articulate. In many companies, the person who talks the best usually gets the job. I got snowed by a few of those people over the years. I still think communication is important, but I don’t think there’s always a correlation between being a great communicator and other virtues that make for a great leader.

That’s why the first thing you should look at is character. I look for somebody who has classic virtues such as integrity, honesty, courage, love, and wisdom. Someone who is hard-working, candid, and ambitious, while still showing humility. I also look for people who have a high degree of emotional intelligence — a high capacity for caring. I think for leadership positions, emotional intelligence is more important than cognitive intelligence. People with emotional intelligence usually have a lot of cognitive intelligence, but that’s not always true the other way around.

More on John Mackey of Whole Foods on Hiring Leaders, Management Trends Article – Inc. Article.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about intuition and Emotional Intelligence. Writers such as Malcolm Gladwell and António Damasio have explored how “hunches” come from unconscious processes that involve our emotional brain. These intuitions provide extremely valuable information. Emotional Intelligence helps enhance this faculty.

Here’s a lengthy quote from Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, on this subject.

Bilateralism is a design principle underlying the evolution of advanced organisms. Nature seems to have learned to design in pairs; it not only builds in redundancy but achieves capabilities not possible otherwise. Two legs are critical for rapid, flexible locomotion. Two arms and hands are vital for climbing, lifting, and manipulating objects. Two eyes give us stereoscopic vision, and along with two ears, depth perception. Is it not possible that, following the same design principle, reason and intuition are designed to work in harmony for us to achieve our potential intelligence?

Systems thinking may hold a key to integrating reason and intuition. Intuition eludes the grasp of linear thinking, with its exclusive emphasis on cause and effect that are close in time and space.  The result is that most of our intuitions don’t make ’sense’ – that is, they can’t be explained in terms of linear logic.

Very often, experienced managers have rich intuitions about complex systems, which they cannot explain.  Their intuitions tell them that cause and effect are not close in time and space, that obvious solutions will produce more harm than good, and that short-term fixes produce long-term problems.  But they cannot explain their ideas in simple linear cause-effect language.  They end up saying, ‘Just do it this way.  It will work.’

As managers gain facility with systems thinking as an alternative language, they find that many of their intuitions become explicable.  Eventually, reintegrating reason and intuition may prove to be one of the primary contributions of systems thinking.

What is your experience uniting reason and intuition?

I keep noticing that the success of my daily interactions depends on my own clarity and inner honesty. If I’m upset or scared, this will come through in my nonverbals, no matter how hard I try to avoid this.

Here are two recent examples. A new roommate moved into my office space. Some of her coworkers started to visit and talk loudly in our tiny shared office as I tried to work. What to do? At home, I rehearsed carefully worded “I” statements. It was my problem; I was the one who found it difficult to work with nearby conversations. Still, I worried that my coworkers would be angry if I made any requests regarding sound.

As I sat with the issue, I realized that the context of this interaction was also key. I had barely given my roommate a chance to settle in and I was ready to ask for more quiet. As I explored my feelings, I realized that my intuitions (that the conversation could be unproductive) were warning me.

No matter how perfectly I communicated with my coworkers, I doubt it would have gone well because of the fear and anger hidden in my own psyche. After examining my feelings, I began to see that it was my inner-pessimist that was afraid and upset (“My quiet workplace-ruined forever!”). Once I admitted these deeper feelings, I recognized that my desire to jump in quickly with “assertive” communication was really an unconscious desire to control the new situation. If I tried to talk with my coworkers without understanding these feelings, they would come through. My colleagues would probably sense my fears and anger.

Emotional awareness is vital in these everyday dilemmas. If I am conscious enough of my feelings, I can admit them (“I’m feeling afraid that my quiet workplace…”). This “I” statement is more likely to work, since I’m “owning” my feelings and not unconsciously “throwing” them at my colleagues. Without emotional awareness, I’d be unable to do this. My coworkers would be right to be offended: I would have acted on my feelings without even knowing if they were justified.

After discovering my deeper reactions, I immediately felt better. I also knew that any conversation would now be much more successful. My willingness to handle the uncertainty of the situation took the pressure off myself (and my co-workers).

Postscript: within a short time, I adjusted to my terrific, new officemate. If my work required extra quiet, I used a pair of earplugs.

Another example:

My husband and I enjoy traveling and spending time with my parents. But when they recently talked about joining us on a cruise together, I felt strangely uncomfortable. Why? As I quizzed myself, I realized I was worried about my father’s fragile health. Was he really able to handle a cruise? What if something happened to him while in my care? I was worried about my Dad but also forced to admit my more selfish concerns. Would our dream vacation become mired in taking care of a sick parent?

I didn’t like seeing my own selfishness, but it was important to acknowledge. I could then make a choice. I wanted a carefree vacation but I also love my parents. I knew I’d be happy to support their choice in joining us on a cruise.

Unlike my earlier example, in this case I concluded that I needed to share my concerns with my mother. Was this really a good trip for Dad? My new clarity meant that our conversation wouldn’t be confused by my own inner contradictions. Before my awareness, my concerns may have merged with my more selfish fears. Now I knew my own inner truth: I was concerned and also ready to support their voyage, if they chose to go.

The only way for me to act with integrity is if I know the deepest dimensions of my reactions. Armed with this knowledge, I have the best chance of not sending a mixed message to others. Mixed messages cause stress for the receiving party. This is why a mixed message (I am trying hard not to be angry with you but am actually very angry with you) often results in conflict.

I first must communicate with myself before I can communicate with another.

What Makes Us Happy
Barbara Fatum, M.Ed., Ed.D.

It’s an age-old question; “what makes us happy?” Is it true love? Is it fulfillment in our careers? Is it status, respect, intelligence, money, family, friends, health, or any combination of these factors? Well, we have an amazing source to turn to for some answers to this question. For 72 years, researchers at Harvard have been examining this question, following 268 men who entered college in the late 1930’s through war, career, marriage and divorce, parenthood and grandparenthood, and old age. The architect responsible for continuing the study, Dr. George Vaillant, has dedicated his career since 1967 to following the men of the Grant study. (Arlie Bock, a physician who took over the health services at Harvard in the 1930’s, conceived the project with his patron, department-store magnate W.T. Grant.) Dr. Vaillant has said, “To be able to study lives in such depth, over so many decades….it was like looking through the Mount Palomar telescope.”

Dr. Vaillant identified with the longitudinal method of research, which tracks relatively small samples over long periods of time, in 1961, while a psychiatric resident at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center. Dr. Vaillant points out that longitudinal studies, like wine, improve with age. As the Grant study men entered middle age (in the 1960”s) many achieved wonderful success. Four members of the sample ran for the U.S. Senate, one served in a presidential Cabinet, and one was president. There was also a best-selling novelist. But there were also darker stories. By age 50, almost a third of the men had at one time or another met Dr. Vaillant’s criteria for mental illness. Although the Grant study men remain anonymous, some have revealed themselves. Ben Bradlee, the long-time editor of The Washington Post and John F. Kennedy both revealed themselves as part of the study. (President Kennedy’s records have been withdrawn from the study office and sealed until 2040).

Dr. Vaillant’s central question in the analysis of the Grant men has not been how much or how little trouble the men met, but rather precisely how-and to what effect- they responded to that trouble. Calling these responses “adaptations,” or defense mechanisms in the traditional psychoanalytic tradition, Dr. Vaillant feels that adaptations shape or distort a person’s reality. There are four categories of adaptations from worst to best. The unhealthiest adaptations are “psychotic” adaptations – like paranoia, hallucination, or megalomania. The healthiest or “mature” adaptations include:

altruism (commitment to others’ wellbeing – i.e. empathy)
humor (acquired through knowing yourself)
anticipation (creating a sense of positive outcome – ie optimism)
suppression (a conscious decision to postpone an impulse or decision, to be
addressed in good time – ie consequential thinking)
sublimation (finding outlets and expressions for feelings that promote growth and
good decisions – ie, pursuing a noble goal)

Interviews, physicals, assessments with standardized instruments, and extensive physiological measurements (brain scans, heart scans etc.) have been the basis for analysis of the men’s lives. The data is rich, in qualitative style, and empirical, in the tradition of 1960’s psychological assessment. After following the study for a quarter of a century, Dr. Vaillant identified seven major factors that predict healthy aging, both physically and psychologically: employing positive adaptation, education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight. Dr. Vaillant has said that the major difficulty in healthy aging is alcoholism, which he termed “the horse, not the cart, of pathology.” The key to happiness, according to Dr. Vaillant? “It is social aptitude, not intellectual brilliance or parental social class, that leads to successful aging.” When asked what he had learned from his 40 year association following the Grant study men, Dr. Vaillant replied, “That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”

When I finished reading the article describing this study in The Atlantic recently, I was incredibly excited, struck by how much the Grant study validates the importance of Emotional Intelligence (EI). The healthiest “adaptations” are EI competencies that are a core part of the programs that we teach. Altruism is another word for Empathy; Humor is acquired through knowing yourself, being able to step back from a situation, and choosing how to respond; anticipation is a combination of understanding patterns and consequences; suppression is taking six seconds to allow emotions and cognitions to connect; and sublimation is giving yourself to others in a socially acceptable, selfless and noble manner. Dr. Vaillant’s conclusions are echoed by the work and teachings of leaders of the emotional intelligence and social-emotional learning movement: Daniel Goleman, Peter Salovey, John Mayer, Martin Seligman, Maurice Elias, the Dalai Lama, Sam Goldstein, Edward Hallowell, Roger Weissberg, Patricia Wolfe, Karen Stone McCown, Anabel Jensen, Marsha Rideout, and Josh Freedman.

We are very privileged to have the research from the Grant study to draw on. The fact that it supports the main EI precepts that we teach is incredible validation. We need to shout this to the world!!

More about the Atlantic Article is in Tessy’s EQ Planet post below

I’ve been reflecting on my writing practice and realize that it is a perfect tool for increasing emotional intelligence. Writing can help us reach unrealized parts of ourselves.

Discovering myself.
As I string words together, sentence after sentence, my conscious mind slowly gains access to a storehouse of impressions, ideas, memories, and knowledge from my past. From brainstorming, to rough, working, and final drafts, I become aware of what other parts of me already know. Psychologists and others (have you read Blink?) describe a delay between the arrival of new thoughts (or feelings), and our conscious awareness of them. Before a thought/feeling becomes fully conscious, we may only sense it through elusive moods, or physical symptoms. If we don’t take the time to contemplate (sitting quietly, talking to a good listener, or journaling) the thought/feeling may never come to consciousness. We then can’t retrieve the information, and if the thoughts/feelings are a trigger for us, we may react without ever knowing why.

With patience, writing pulls forth all this latent information. We can discover not only our hidden feelings and beliefs, but also creative ideas that have been haunting us. To reach our inner knowledge, we need only take the time to keep writing, through the clichés and banality, until we find an idea that feels both familiar and new. We can then keep asking ourselves, what is this idea (or feeling)? What do I know about it? What else can I say about it? I am often astounded when, after withstanding the temptation to give up on a subject, I breakthrough and brainstorm many new pages on it.

Don’t worry about aesthetics and form. Simply write to discover the goldmine of useful information inside. You have an inexhaustible source of knowledge, not only about yourself (which is priceless and exceptionally useful) but about any problem you face. I’ve always found that creative solutions are already present within a dilemma. We only have to dig for them. Journaling or blogging are great ways to begin.

What is your experience of writing?

While I’ve never lived in another country, I have lived for long periods in the Midwest and California. As I moved from one region to another, I felt a seismic shift between two cultures that seemed radically different in their approach to emotions. Were my encounters atypical? Perhaps. Still, as I contemplate my 20-year study of the “inner life,” I’m fascinated by the differences I found—especially regarding anger.

At 26, I left the Midwest (and the Catholic Church) and moved to California. I began a 10-year odyssey, exploring theatre arts, psychology, and “consciousness studies” in Berkeley, San Francisco, and other mind-bending communities. I was surrounded by groups who explored their emotions without dodging the great taboo—anger. With talented professionals and earnest friends, I intrepidly began to explore my own inner minefield–sore spots, wounds, (complexes for the Freudian/Jungians out there) and springs of anger.

When I returned to the Midwest, I felt immediately disoriented. My family and friends seemed to have a radically different set of norms. While I had painstakingly learned to identify my feelings and gently admit them to others—now even the slightest acknowledgement of anger seemed to threaten my companions. All my hard-won inner knowledge and commitment to honest communication was suddenly destroying a fragile emotional ecosystem I no longer understood (or appreciated).

I’ve been back in the Midwest for 12 years now, longer than the time I spent in exotic California. I continue to explore my own inner landscape and the taboo of anger. In my workshops, it seems to be the emotion that most haunts my participants, especially the women. When I discovered the field of emotional intelligence, I was grateful for its validation of my own beliefs—that anger was a necessary emotion that should be examined, not repressed.

Have you experienced regional or cultural differences regarding different emotions?

While reflecting on yesterday’s EI class, I’ve been thinking about Josh’s 12/15 blog entry. While I’m always awed and humbled when participants ask me to solve their personal problems, I agree with Josh—there are no quick fixes to offer. What to do? I want my participants to feel good about our training. How can I meet each person’s particular needs—especially if their requests are impossible to grant?

For an inspiring illustration of EI in action, have you heard the story of Navy commander D. Michael Abrashoff? Abrashoff was given command of the USS Benfold. He says: “All I ever wanted to do in the Navy was to command a ship. I don’t care if I ever get promoted again. That attitude has enabled me to do the right things for my people instead of doing the right things for my career.”

Abrashoff recognized that when Navy officers succumb to career pressures they make poor choices for their people. The new commander decided to simply care for his crew in novel ways, such as finding time to periodically talk to every sailor on his ship (over 300 men!). He responded to their needs without following standard procedure. (When he learned that credit-card debt, not housing, was hurting his crew he brought financial counselors aboard.) Abrashhoff risked his career to follow his own inner voice and he revitalized not only his ship but the entire Navy

You can read more about his inspiring story in this fastcompany article.

I’ve been thinking about mirror neurons after seeing a wonderful video at the PBS/Nova site. These specialized brain cells help us relate to our surroundings and other people. Mirror cells build empathy and connection. They are activated when we watch and listen to others.

The video suggested that mirror neurons function even more profoundly when we witness an emotion or activity that we ourselves have experienced. This explains why my husband can feel intensely involved when simply watching a football game and I am unmoved. Could this also explain why women are more often affected by “chick flicks” that explore subtle or complicated emotional situations? (Sorry for the stereotypes in this entry, I use them only to offer simple examples!) In this case, young girls and women in our culture seem to practice and explore these “complicated emotional situations” more than men.

For example, I recently met a manager who was supervising a team of eight women: “Tom’s” struggle to relate to his team compelled him to attend one of my EI seminars. Tom confessed that he wasn’t comfortable expressing emotions. He also acknowledged that the women on his team seemed like an alien species. If Tom isn’t emotionally literate, are his mirror neurons less able to help him relate to the “emotional” women at work?

Learning about brain structure continues to help me understand how emotional intelligence offers practical assistance in daily life. I see the benefit of constantly developing our awareness of emotional states. For Tom, recognizing his own fears and angers could help his mirror neurons fulfill their function–helping Tom connect with his team so he can actually lead.