The author is interviewed by Pat Lecky-Thompson.
Should we be assessing for EI when we recruit new managers?
Recruitment is a complex process, and the extent to which EI should form a significant part depends on the needs of the organisation. However, I think that there is a strong argument that EI is crucial when it comes to people management. Imagine the manager who is not aware of his or her own strengths and weaknesses, who cannot "read" the signs of emotional distress in himself or herself or others. Imagine the manager who lacks any curiosity about the team members. Would they, the team members, feel valued or understood? Would their anxieties about their work be contained? Would they give of their best? Perhaps, but I would have serious doubts about the team's long-term resilience or effectiveness.
Is it possible to recognise the potential for EI in untried recruits? If so, what questions would one ask at interview?
Yes, I believe that it is possible to recognise EI in untried recruits. I use two methods: one-to-one interviews and observations of group behaviour. In the one-to-one interview, questions around the potential recruit's resilience will tell you quite a lot about his or her emotional intelligence. For example, if a young man told me that the most testing time in his life was when he got stuck up a mountain, I would want to know how he felt about it. What did he learn? How did he feel when he realised that he was stuck? Who was with him? What went through his mind? If he was not alone, did he think about how the situation might be experienced by his fellow mountaineers? What did he do to help them? His answers would tell me something about how he manages himself, and how he thinks and feels about others.
For some people the most testing time in their lives has been when they have had to perform - a driving test, an exam and so on. Again, their account of how they managed the situation will provide some insight into their self-awareness.
Another method, which can be used only in an assessment centre type of setting, is to observe the recruit whilst he or she works in a group. How does the recruit behave? How sensitive is he or she to the other members? Does he or she consider how best to include the quieter members? After the group it is interesting to ask what he or she made of the meeting. What did he or she notice about his or her performance? What did he or she notice about the others? The answers will be rich in information. You could argue that it is not a particularly reliable or valid method. However, if there are six or more people in the group, and you ask everyone the same questions after the meeting, then it is at least an equivalent process. The emotionally intelligent recruits will demonstrate that they observed the finer details of the group processes. They will also provide a richer account of their own thoughts and feelings. It is therefore quite possible to make sensible comparisons.
Can you give a concrete example?
Well, if the recruit has authoritarian tendencies, and bosses the other members of the group about, without taking into account what they say and do, then it would be very interesting to hear what he or she made of experience. Why did he or she behave that way? Is that how he or she behaves in other settings? It would also be interesting to hear the thoughts of the other members of the group. Why did they not stand up to the bullying behaviour? Why did they collude with the idea that it is OK to be bossed about?
Is there a standardised way of testing for EI, or comparing the degree to which candidates are gifted in this subject?
Yes, there are a number of commercially available EI tests. However, in order to purchase the better-known products from the more reputable publishing houses the prospective user usually has to undergo a short (and sometimes expensive) training course. If you enter the words, "Emotional Intelligence" or "EI Tests" into your search engine, you'll get an idea of what's on sale at the moment.
I must add that my strong preference is to avoid the use of any formal EI test in the assessment centre setting. There are two main reasons. Firstly, there is the risk that the potential recruit might try to "fake good" and not answer all the self-report questions truthfully. Secondly, I am of the view that if one administers a test one has a professional responsibility to provide constructive feedback. This involves a lot of time, and tends to get in the way when the primary task is selection, not development.
But would you use an EI test as part of the management development process?
Yes, as I mentioned in answer to your first question, in my view the assessment of EI is an important part of management development, if only because it identifies the training needs. Remember, one of the underlying assumptions about EI is that it can be developed. This is indeed where standardised EI tests can be used appropriately. Using the results as a starting point, the manager's strengths and areas for development can be identified.
What personality traits are good indicators?
Curiosity is a really good start. In my opinion, the manager who is genuinely interested in the emotional life of his or her team, and can think about the group dynamics, has a far better chance of being an effective leader. Imagine working with someone who assumes he always knows how you think and feel? Imagine working with someone who is inflexible? OK, so there are very few people who are completely rigid and insensitive, but we're talking about traits and tendencies. In my experience there are some managers who cover up their less attractive traits at first, but revert to type whenever the pressures start to build up. However, that is very much a personal opinion and not based on empirical research!
Good verbal fluency is another helpful asset. Part of being emotionally intelligent is the ability to describe, or put into words, difficult feelings and situations. For example, the emotionally intelligent manager would give some considerable thought about how best to break bad news to a member of the team. He or she would probably come to the conclusion that the news is best broken face-to-face, and not over the phone, not least because in order to know how best to proceed, one needs to see how the recipient copes with the shock of the news. I have known of managers who cope with their own anxieties about such situations by using the telephone. The results were predictably disastrous.
Are there any situations at work where the value of EI is demonstrated?
I think for most of us our level of EI is demonstrated by how we deal with conflict and difficult situations. I would argue that managers who are more emotionally intelligent are better able to deal with pressure. I imagine that they tend to have lower sickness absence rates, because they would be more likely to discuss and resolve conflict than to bottle it up and develop physical symptoms such as headaches or stomach aches. Unfortunately I don't have concrete evidence to back up my claims. I would also hypothesise that the higher the EI in the organisation, the lower the overall sickness absence rate. Again, I do not have any figures to hand, but I would be interested to hear of any research.
Do you have any last thoughts?
Yes. Despite my cynicism about EI being a bit like an old perfume in a new bottle, I believe that we should have a sensible debate about it. Let's hope this interview starts the process with your readers. I look forward to any comments, and would welcome any contrasting views.
Peter Thomson is a Clinical Psychologist and Organisational Consultant.