Friday February 26, 2016
Super Tuesday is almost here. After months of observing candidate frontrunners (sometimes on purpose, and other times subjected) it’s not their ideas and opinions I began to focus on. It was their behavior and the specific words and actions they used to communicate their views to the public and one another.
We discussed the logic and holes in using EI (Emotional Intelligence) tests throughout the employment process in Part I and Part II. The idea being those with high EQs (Emotional Quotients) were typically top-performers the kind of people who exercise compassion, commitment and integrity. The kind of people we look to for leadership.
Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Princess Diana all demonstrated high EQs. In their own ways they were influencers; self-aware and passionate, conscientious and curious, motivated by desire - as were Bernie Madoff, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The difference was in their intent. Some are driven by personal wants regardless of costs instead of the greater good.
Over the past few weeks we’ve seen our share of podium pounding politicians pontificate, cry or yell belting out their beliefs on any number of topics including climate change, immigration, the economy and social welfare. Is it effective? Or does something get lost in translation?
We have an expectation that leaders and managers be emotionally resilient - let alone competent and composed.
Does an emotional episode affect the credibility of a person in a position of power?
“One is certain of nothing but the truth of one’s own emotions.”
E.M. Forster 1879-1970
Call Innotrieve. We’re emotionally stable here and have no reason to flip out on you. We’d like to hear what you think.