Monthly Archives: November 2009

Emotional Intelligence in Action

eq_iceberg1

“Those that are unwilling to do violence will always be subject to those that are.” — Unknown

It occurred to me, over the weekend, that some of my readers with an engineering or finance background might need be persuaded of the power emotional intelligence. I know that when I started my corporate career I figured I’d spend most of my time in a darkened room in front of a computer terminal, and once in a while somebody would slide a pizza under the door for me. No human interaction required.

That’s not how it worked out. As I grew more skilled and knowledgeable at my job, I was given more responsibility. This meant I was directing the work of other people, and sliding pizza under the door for them. I found out that  management is an entirely different skill set, which required me to work with people, which required me to notice emotions. I learned to work through other people, which is good, because job opportunities working trees is fairly limited.

Here’s a concrete example of emotional intelligence in action:

Two weeks ago I was at a professional association dinner. Often these dinners have some association business attached to them. This month it was elections for the board. Both candidates had been volunteers for several years, and had the necessary experience and skills for the position. Each had equally bold and valid directions in which they wanted to take the association, but they had two very different approaches to persuading and influencing the membership to vote for them.

The first candidate gave her two-minute speech in person from the front of the room. You could tell she was nervous, and a little awkward. The room forgave her and even encouraged her because they liked her and knew her. She had spent the last year introducing dinner speakers, and she was energetic, smiling, and outgoing, even if sometimes it seemed she was trying too hard.

The second candidate was unable to attend the dinner because of a previous business commitment. Fair enough. He’d gone to the trouble of preparing a two-minute video speech. It was well thought out, well put together, and convincing. I’d never heard him speak before, nor met him, but it impressed me. He’d put effort into thinking about and creating his message, and he’d created a professional, persuasive presentation.

Still he lost to the first candidate. Why? She had established a personal relationship with most people in the room. Even though she didn’t know everybody personally, she was known to everybody there. In all my interactions with her she was accessible, pleasant, and a good listener. She made her presentation in person. She had the social awareness that somebody with a high EQ has, even though she wasn’t doing it consciously or deliberately. As well prepared as the second candidate’s presentation was, it just didn’t have the personal connection.

“But that’s not fair!”, you might exclaim, and you’re probably right. So what? As much as many of us might pretend to wish otherwise, people are emotional creatures. Emotions drive our decisions and behaviour. Is this right and fair? That doesn’t matter. It’s reality, and those that are unwilling to recognize this will always be subject to manipulation by those that do.

My point is this: if you want to have somebody gets paid more than you to slip pizza under the door, while you do the skilled technical work, that’s fine. I respect your choice. If, however, you want to do greater things than you can do by yourself, have a greater influence in your organization or on your customers, and be a better manager, then you’re going to need to understand and manage relationships.

What is sometimes dismissed as “office politics” is the skillful (or not) management of social relations. You can learn and improve these skills. You can refine your self-awareness, self-regulation, social awareness, and relationship management to give you the competitive advantage you need to deliver results. You don’t have to do it perfectly. You just have to do it a little better than the people around you.

Remember that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

Book Review: Emotional Intelligence 2.0

book_open-3

“If IQ was the biggest social construct of the 20th century, it’s likely self-regulation will be the biggest construct of the 21st” – Dr. Stuart Shanker, Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy and Psychology, York University

Why should managers care about emotional intelligence? It will help you improve your execution the two most important functions of management: achieving results, and developing your people. Being better at understanding and managing your own emotions, and being better at understanding other’s emotions and managing those relationships, will help you do both. You’ll be better focused, you’ll be able to communicate better, and you and your team will do more.

IQ is the ability to learn new things and is consistent across a person’s lifetime. You can learn more (or not), but you can’t change how smart you are. EQ (emotional intelligence) is a skill which can be improved with focused practise and feedback. This book will help you understand how to do that, and give you concrete, actionable steps to do just that.

Emotional Intelligence 2.0 starts by explaining EQ and why it’s important. Those with EQ and how others perceive them are contrasted against those without, with real-world example and an explanation the consequences. Then it provides an on-line test to check your own EQ, and suggests specific skills, behaviours, and actions to practise. You can take a second test six months later to see how much you’ve improved and get recommendations of the next set of skills to work on.

I recommend this book to anybody that works with other people. Those of you that work with just trees, carry on!

Creating a Safe Place to Fail

Coleman_stove

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all. — Edward de Bono

Camp stoves are dangerous. You’re lighting highly flammable, heated, pressurized, and vapourized fuel to boil water. In the winter stove gas won’t freeze and below zero temperatures, which means that if you spill it on bare skin you’ll be flash frozen. I’ve taught many kids to use a stove safely, which means that I’ve seen just about every mistake possible. I came across an adult once who was throwing matches at a stove from 15 feet away. The stove scared her so much she didn’t be anywhere near it, and the leader that tasked her to start it wasn’t anywhere nearby. Her technique didn’t work.

So when I saw three Scouts having trouble with their stove a couple picnic tables down, I handed the fire extinguisher to another leader and asked him to stand behind them. I knew it wasn’t going to actually blow up, but there would be a big flame and some shaky voices calling for “Scouter Bernie!”

They extinguished the fire without incident. The Scouts learned a) to listen to instructions before playing with matches, b) have a back-up plan (like a fire extinguisher) nearby for what might go wrong, and c) how to disassemble a camp-stove into its constituent parts for cleaning, which also made them more familiar with the stove’s operation. It become part of the troop’s folklore, and one of the stories that got told and laughed about around the campfire for years afterwards.

As managers developing your people is one of your biggest  jobs. It helps make the entire organization more effective. Giving your team and staff a safe place to fail and learn from it is important to this development. Consider a culture where failure is not tolerated. Mistakes are punished, risks are avoided, and covering your ass becomes the standard operating procedure. Nobody is willing to come up with new ideas, take responsibility, or do anything more than get through the day.

Now consider a culture that encourages learning, expects and deals with mistakes, and taking risk and responsibility are the standard operating procedure. We can’t tell our people that they need to learn and take risks, and then punish them for it. We should expect them to take risks, test, and learn.Our job is to create a safe place for that to happen.

This means we need take risks too, even when somebody does thing differently than you would. Even to the point of letting it catch fire – within reason, and long as you have the fire extinguisher ready.

What To Do About Why

words1

I was hanging pictures up with another Scout leader in our hall last week. He was holding the ladder, and I was merrily drilling and banging away. “What was your thinking when you did it that way?”, he asked. I stopped and explained why I was doing it one way and not another. Later I realized he got me to tell him what was going on without me feeling threatened. I would have asked “Why are you doing it that way?”

The words we choose have an impact on the people we’re talking to, but not always the one we want. But/and is one such combination.

Why/What is another.

Sometimes when we’re trying to figure out what’s happened, or what somebody was thinking, we’ll ask:

Why did you do that?

Consider how you’ve felt when somebody asked you “Why?” I can remember my Mom asking me, “Why didn’t you do your homework?” Of course I’m not going to tell her “Because I’d rather watch TV.”  That would just provoke her into pulling out the wooden spoon. So she got the “I dunno” answer instead.

What would be a better question? Yes, “what”.

“What” is less threatening. It sounds less like a personal attack. It displaces blame on something else. Even when we’re sure personal blame needs assigning, asking “Why” is not going to get you a straight answer. “What was stopping you from doing your homework?” is another way to ask.

There are a couple of exceptions to this, of course, because tone and body language still count for something. “What were you thinking?” is something I’ve had occasion to ask my teenagers, but it doesn’t often get me a straight answer.  Still, it’s better than “Why did you do that?”

Butt Out The Use of But

words1Does language shape our thinking, or does our thinking shape our language?

Certainly our language can shape other’s thinking. Take this example: Your boss has come up with a great idea, but you have some questions about how it’s going to get done. You do the mature thing, and in a private meeting, you raise your concerns with her. Compare the following two sentences:

I completely support your plan to replace all the vending machines with treadmills, but I have a couple of questions about how we’re going to implement it.

. . . versus . . .

I completely support your plan to replace all the vending machines with treadmills, and I have a couple of questions about how we’re going to implement it.

It may not seem like changing one word makes much of a difference. To us it has exactly the same meaning. To the listener it sounds completely different. Read both sentences out loud again. Listen carefully for the emotional difference.

The “and” sentence conveys support and agreement. You really are supporting your boss’s plan to replace the vending machines, and you’re ready to get at it as soon as you get a couple of the final details from her.

“But” tells the listener that everything that came before it in your statement means nothing. “But” is the great canceller, negating any support you might actually feel. It gives the impression that you don’t really support your boss’s plan but were just saying so to butter her up for your dazzling counter-arguments.

Try this experiment for the next week – in all your written and verbal communications with family, friends, and at work, don’t use the word “but” at all. Substitute “and” every time. It will be difficult and awkward at first, because you’ll have to watch and catch yourself doing it, but watch the effect it has on the people around you and how they react to you.

It will be a positive change.

Spending Time Builds Trust


IMGP7157

Trust no one unless you have eaten much salt with him — Cicero

My father and I haven’t always gotten along. I was a quiet, short-sighted kid who loved books and music and taking radios apart. He wasn’t. Although we like and respect each other, for many years we both agreed that spending more than a week together was hard on both of us (and our wives/my mother).

One thing we did get right  was the weekends we went canoeing and camping together. He had a couple of buddies with a cabin in the Whiteshell. Many times we would camp out on the point nearby. It was a neutral place for us to just enjoy each other’s company. I got pretty good at paddling and camping, which carried into my later life as a Scout leader. Getting out in the woods is something I still do to blow the cobwebs out from between my ears. A gift from my father that I’ve always appreciated and never forgotten.

Building relationships is hard and takes time. No matter who and where we are. At work, trust and openness isn’t something you get by virtue of your position, or your expertise. Especially in today’s ‘matrix’ organizations.

Positional authority is rare. Many titles abound, yet only a few have the power to spend money, or hire & fire people . That’s what matrix organizations do. The consequence is that fewer and fewer managers are being properly trained, but that’s another rant. Expertise authority is now concentrated in the one or two at the top of the pool of similar resources, instead of being spread across an organization.

Relational authority is the only authority left to many managers and leaders responsible for delivering results. Unless you’re one of the few ‘functional’ managers responsible for actually hiring, firing, and promoting staff, you don’t have positional authority. Unless you’re one of the top two or three experts in your field in your company, then you don’t have technical authority. Your work now depends on getting things accomplished through other people. If you can’t work with other people, you won’t deliver.

Getting work done with and through others means they have to trust you, and you them. When you have trust then you have influence. When you have influence, you can get things done.

It starts with basics like learning names, being interested in others’ lives and aspirations, showing interest by asking questions, ‘catching’ them doing things right and giving positive feedback. Attention over time builds trust.

A couple of weekends ago my father came up from Winnipeg. He and I, and my adult son packed up the trailer for a weekend of hunting in the Alberta foothills. The only game we saw was the south-end of some north-bound deer. After a day in the woods we sat around the trailer’s kitchen table and shared stories that we hadn’t told each other before. Stories of grandfathers and family, things we did when we were kids. It meant a lot to me, because my son was there to see my father and I sharing with each other.

The trust that built between us happened because we spent time together. Maybe the gin helped, but the bonding would have happened with or without it.

(The picture above is of my daughter steering a canoe down the Red Deer River on a Scout canoe trip two summers ago.)