Cari Info

by Craig Mindrum

Recent discussions of emotion in the workplace have been dominated by the subject of emotional intelligence (EI), so much so it's fair to ask if anything is being lost by looking only through that lens.

Certainly, part of emotional intelligence' s value lies in establishing a kind of rigor and consistency in how talent managers understand emotions' different dimensions. Further, by applying benchmarks and analyses, talent leaders can perform measurements on an organization' s emotional state and clarify what role emotion will play in effective leadership.

For example, a 2006 research study published in Europe's Journal of Psychology looked at a random sampling of 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group. The company asked more than 1,400 employees to rank these leaders according to emotional intelligence dimensions. The results clearly showed the highest-performing managers - using business performance criteria - correlated with strong showings in emotional competence.

It's important to remember emotional intelligence literature exhibits a bias toward control and self-management. The framework of EI components is rich, but many infer that self-control implies a kind of detachment when it comes to emotional expressiveness. That's where things get uncertain: Is it OK for leaders to express regret? Anger? Happiness?

One of the distinctive characteristics of the ideal manager created by authors Kenneth Blanchard and Spencer Johnson in the popular book The One Minute Manager was a kind of cool remoteness. One came away from the book feeling managers are to be Zen masters, never letting emotion carry them away.

Yet, being aloof and controlled can be dangerous in the workplace, especially among managers and executives. Is the ideal we strive for one of pure rationality, never swayed by preferences, sadness, joy or any of the things that make us truly human?

University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum once wrote of this pull toward an overreliance on cool reason by speaking of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates is strange to the modern human - Nussbaum wrote in 1991 journal article titled "The Chill of Virtue" - even as he was strange to his contemporaries, because he appeared to seek nothing other than abstract virtues such as courage, moderation and justice. What is left out in Socrates' single-mindedness? Pity, tragedy, emotion, empathy - maybe even love. That leaves a question, Nussbaum concluded rhetorically: Is this a good way for human beings to live?

I think not. It is important to understand various emotions on a spectrum and make sure leadership and the culture at-large understand some key differences. Take crying, something that has gotten increased attention since former U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton let down her guard on the campaign trail and displayed teary eyes.

Crying does not have to be a sign of weakness. Nelson Mandela noted in his autobiography he was impressed while watching an old newsreel of World War II, seeing Winston Churchill cry after hearing the news a British vessel had gone down at sea. To Mandela, that meant "there are times when a leader can show sorrow in public, and that it will not diminish him in the eyes of his people."

Yet crying at news that a co-worker has cancer is quite different from crying after losing a major client or missing a deadline. Showing joy at winning a major contract is different than displaying the same emotion when promoted over a rival. A manager's anger at shoddy performance - properly targeted - can be far more effective than bland concern about employees' self-esteem. But using anger consistently as a motivator is something else entirely.

Neither unrestrained emotion, nor the absence of emotion, is the answer for today's workplace. The role of emotion must be discussed openly to determine its proper place, and models of behavior should be affirmed and demonstrated, especially by influential leaders in the organization.