EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

And

Leadership

for

Sustained Relation

1
Preamble

The training on emotional intelligence mainly covers the four components of EI.

Understanding the four components of EI would enable us to enhance our relation so

we can have lasting and best relation with others.

Self awareness is the starting of EI where we need to manage our emotion for better

social awareness and sustainable relation. On top of that we will look at the issues of

emotional bank account where we could have emotional withdrawal and deposit as a

tool for managing long term relation with anyone.

Socia l-
Awa r en ess

Self-
Ma n a gem en t

Self-
Awa r en ess

2
INTRODUCTION

Emotional Intelligence is a field full of controversy. In trying to understand emotional

intelligence as a concept and its implications three important questions need to be

answered: 1) what is emotional intelligence?; 2) can it be measured?; and 3) can it

be developed? (Higgs and Dulewicz, 2002). This training will put a major emphasis in

the clarification of the first and second issues by conceptualizing emotional

intelligence as a scientific viable construct and analyzing its different possibilities of

operationalization.

There is no consensus about how the construct of emotional intelligence should be

described and measured from a scientific point of view. It is well accepted that

emotional intelligence should go beyond purely cognitive elements, as it should

involve some elements of the affective domain.

Even if rigorous research has been conducted in this area, some authors still claim

that emotional intelligence is only a myth (e.g. Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002;

Davies, Stankov and Roberts, 1998). It has to be clarified what is going to be

investigated and which is its importance within the theoretical framework that we are

using. The construct validity of emotional intelligence may be damaged because of

two main reasons: (1) theoretical constructs are not well defined and, consequently,

they are not properly operationalized; and (2) the relationships between different

operationalizations of the construct are not empirically examined (Mestre Navas,

Carreras de Alba and Guil Bozal, 2000).

The goal of the present training is to contribute to place emotional intelligence in the

scientific context with a well-defined theoretical construct, by reviewing the state of

the art of the emotional intelligence field and by proposing an integrated approach of

emotional intelligence.

3
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Neurological basis of emotional intelligence.

Some authors claim that emotions constitute a key role in the motivational system of

human behavior (e.g. Izard, 1971; Rolls, 1999; Fridja, 2000). While there is no

agreement on how to define emotions, there is little doubt that they are inherent to

human nature. And, consequently, if we want to understand human nature and

human psychology in a broader sense (personality, motivation, behavior, adaptation,

etc.), it becomes crucial to understand the intricacies of the emotional system.

The starting premise is that emotions are not as intangible or erratic as they might

seem. It is necessary to turn to neurological research in order to find their neural

substrate.

Attention will be concentrated on modern theories of the neuroscience of emotion. To

build a comprehensive conceptual framework, we can classify emotions according to

two different criteria, mentation locus (term proposed by Davidson, Jackson and

Kalin, 2000) and types of studies supporting the theories (following the explanation of

Elster, 2001).

Mentation locus refers to where to search for emotional differentiation. The theories

presented to date share a common characteristic: Periphery plays a key role in

modulating emotional experience. Other modern theories, on the contrary, claim the

importance of the central nervous system as the main factor responsible for

emotional differentiation. Our second variable, types of studies supporting the

theories, is taken from a proposal of Jon Eltser (2001). He claimed that to look for the

basic causal mechanisms of emotions we should focus our attention on four types of

studies, that is, studies on 'normal' individuals, studies of patients with brain lesions,

4
experimental studies on animal behavior and observation of animals living in natural

or semi-natural conditions.

To understand the latest advances in the neuroscience of emotion, we are going to

review the influential theories of Antonio Damasio (1995), Joseph LeDoux (1996,

2002), Edmund T. Rolls (1999) and Richard J. Davidson et al. (2000) (see figure 1).

The theories of LeDoux, Davidson et al. and Rolls are conceptually similar. Rolls

(1999) identified the following three main divergences:

First, LeDoux focuses mostly on the amygdala. This is because LeDoux is applying

an experimental study to rodents. There is no doubt that neocortical structures

between rodents and human beings present a huge difference, as in rodents they are

much less developed. This is probably why LeDoux focuses on the amygdala as the

centerpiece of the emotional circuitry. LeDoux did, however, claim that cortical areas

of the brain are important in experiencing emotion (LeDoux, 2002).

Second, LeDoux focuses on one emotion, fear. LeDoux claims that in order to

understand emotions, we have to understand the brain systems involved in each of

them. He may also study fear because it is much easier to induce negative effects in

laboratory experiments than positive effects. However, as Davidson et al. (2000)

noticed, whether or not the amygdala is implicated in all emotions is still an open

question in neuroscience.

Third, Rolls (1999) said that it may be unlikely that the second route of emotion

identified by LeDoux influences behavior via subcortical inputs to the amygdala. He

claims that the amygdala may regulate simple stimuli, such as a simple tone, that are

associated with rewards or punishments. But in the case of human beings, stimulus

usually requires associations with an invariant representation of an object. These

associations require higher temporal lobe cortical areas. There is no doubt that

5
stimulus appraisals are far more complex in human beings than in rodents, but as

Rolls (1999) and Davidson et al. (2000) claimed, plasticity and learning occur in the

amygdala, and associations between stimuli and reinforcers (to use Rolls’

terminology) may constitute a reason why this second route of emotion can be

hypothesized as also valid for human beings.

Both Rolls (1999) and Davidson et al. (2000) claimed that plasticity occurs in the key

brain elements involved in the emotional circuitry, that is, amygdala, prefrontal cortex

and hippocampus.

Summing up the role of these important brain areas that are connected to emotional

brain processes, the amygdala is activated by stimuli and elicits certain forms of

negative affect, particularly fear (LeDoux, 1996). The amygdala is involved in

emotional arousal and projects its outputs to other brain areas, including cortical

areas. Initial learning associations between stimuli and reinforcers occur in this brain

area.

PFC may be more important for the expression of emotion and will be involved in

posterior learning associations of emotional stimuli. It may affect affective style.

The hippocampus and other interconnected structures are important for their

contribution to context-dependent affective responding.

Personality and Performance

“Personality may influence the events one experienced” (Diener and Lucas, 2000).

How people perform themselves in the world must be examined in the context of their

particular personality. Assuming that people have 'flat' personalities creates a fiction

of emptiness within human nature that cannot reflect its real complexity. It is

necessary to analyze individual lives, goals and values to understand fully their

6
emotional life. "There are stable emotional styles of responding to events and

circumstances that are closely linked to personalities" (Diener and Lucas, 2000).

Emotional Intelligence should be circumscribed not only in an area of emotional

arousal, but on how people express these emotions. "Emotional competence can be

defined as the demonstration of self-efficacy in emotion-eliciting social transactions"

(Saarni, 2000). And this emotional self-efficacy should be linked to a theory of

personality and a theory of human action.

It is not the aim of this training to present an exhaustive review of personality and

action theories that can be integrated within the EI field, but just to highlight the

importance of how human vitality and performance are linked together.

Triangle ‘emotions-cognition-motivation’

Traditionally, the mind has been viewed as a trilogy; consisting of cognition, affect

(emotion) and conation (motivation) (Hilgard, 1980).

The cognitive sphere treats the study of mind and thinking processes; the affective

sphere deals with passions and emotions; and, finally, the connative sphere deals

with goals and motivations. Historically, intelligence has been considered a construct

that characterizes the cognitive sphere, linked with analytical thinking.

Emotions play a key role in this triangle. Izard and Ackerman (2000) claimed that

“emotions motivate and organize perception, cognition and action (behavior) in

particular ways”. Thus, the study of the relationship of emotions with the other

elements may be crucial to understand individual differences.

The mental trilogy, emotions, cognitions and motivation, helps to define who we are.

Human beings have to survive and adapt themselves to the environment they are in.

According to Lewis, Amini and Lannon (2001), cognitive, emotional and motivational

resources constitute the integrated system of our metal life and a complete theory of

7
intelligence should link these three concepts to understand not only human nature,

but also human action. Individual differences can be defined by considering all the

aspects involved in this process, from cognitive abstractions to action. For doing so, it

is not sufficient a purely cognitive view of the mind, because emotions and motivation

play also an important role.

First, attention has been paid to the neurological basis of emotions. This has

provided with the instruments that support the understanding of the brain mechanism

of human emotional life. It is important to bear in mind that this understanding should

be the roots of any emotional intelligence theory.

But a description of the neurological basis of emotions is not sufficient to understand

the complexity of human emotionality. It is not only 'what' happens in the brain what

needs to be discovered, but also 'why'. With this objective, curiosity expands toward

new paths. It is necessary to understand how the human mind works and which

processes interact in this play. To do so, the trilogy of mind has been considered.

Emotions, cognitions and motivation are the main characters in this theater of human

mind. But this cognitive perspective is still not sufficient to understand why people

behave the way they do. A theory of personality structure, that guides human vitality

in certain ways, is required. A theoretical framework of emotional intelligence should

take into account human personality and its implications. As Saarni (2000) mentioned

“it is surprisingly that emotional intelligence has often been defined without reference

to the ethical values of one's ego identity and an individual’s developmental history,

as if the human personality was completely flat”. Finally, manifest behaviors should

be analyzed and a theory of performance is needed in order to understand how

people express emotions in their specific context and situation.

8
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCENE.

Different approaches that illuminate distinct aspects of the construct live together in

the emotional intelligence field. But, to be constructive their views may be integrated

to achieve a deep understanding of what being ‘emotionally intelligent’ means. As

Bar-On (2000) suggested “by comparing and contrasting findings rendered by this

and other approaches to emotional and social intelligence, we will be more effective

in mapping out this construct”. But, what type of attributes conform the procedure to

rank and measure ‘EI’ in people? Emotional intelligence field presents four important

theories of research: Mayer and Salovey (1997), Gardner (1999), Bar-On (2000), and

Goleman (1998) and Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002).

The body of research related to emotional intelligence has came up with different

approaches. All definitions of emotional intelligence represent a combination of

cognitive and emotional abilities (Cherniss, 2001b). All share the common desire to

understand and measure the abilities and traits related to recognizing and regulating

emotions in ourselves and others (Goleman, 2001). Some authors claim that the

different conceptualizations tend to be complementary rather than contradictory. It is

a sign of the increasing interest in the topic, showing an active role of research to

understand it better (Emmerling and Goleman, 2003).

On the contrary, other theorists are skeptic, claiming that emotional intelligence may

be like an old wine presented in a new bottle (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002).

To clarify the nature of Emotional Intelligence, constructing a scientific paradigm in

this field still represents a mayor challenge. They complain of the way emotional

intelligence is conceptualized, considering that it is defined by exclusion: everything

that is not measured by the IQ is emotional. Another major concern is to assure that

emotional intelligence is a construct that is offering something new to science. They

9
argue that emotional intelligence may be a myth that is not providing anything new to

psychology (Matthews et al., 2002).

Current Models of Emotional Intelligence

Four models will be presented as they emphasize different psychological aspects

and illuminate the emotional intelligence concept from different perspectives.

First Model: A cognitive approach. The model of Salovey and Mayer is aligned with

the psychometric tradition and frames emotional intelligence within a model of

cognitive abilities of intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). They advocate the co-

operative relationship between emotion and cognition (Salovey, Mayer, 1999). The

authors describe emotional intelligence as "a form of social intelligence that involves

the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate

among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action" (Salovey

and Mayer, 1990).

Second Model: A phenomenological approach. Gardner (1999) advocates a

phenomenological perspective of human intelligence and claims that the

psychometric tradition is too narrow. He defines intelligence as "the biopsychological

potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve

problems or create products that are of value in a culture". Intelligences are

potentials, that may or may not be activated. This conceptualization introduces the

problem of relativism, because intelligence is always shaped by the cultural and

social context of the group that is analyzing the concept (Gardner, 1983).

Gardner never used the term emotional intelligence. In contrast, he offered a model

of multiple intelligences, two of which are intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence,

that share their basic roots with emotional intelligence.

10
Third Model: A model of well-being (Bar-On, 1997, 2000). The EQ-i was constructed

to examine a concept that Reuven Bar-On began to develop in the early 1980s. The

development of the EQI-i began to examine various factors thought to be key

components of effective emotional and social functioning that lead to psychological

well-being (Bar-On, 2000).

There are five EQ composite scale scores: (1) Intrapersonal EQ, (2) Interpersonal

EQ, (3) Stress Management EQ, (4) Adaptability EQ, and (5) General Mood EQ.

Fourth model: A theory of performance (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2002). The

roots of his theory are based on the idea that emotional intelligence leads to human

behavior and that to possess a high level of emotional intelligence promotes specific

competencies that distinguish star from average performers in organizations. In this

sense, he defined emotional competence as "a learned capability based on

emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work" (Goleman,

1998).

The current model of competencies reflects four domains that complete the puzzle of

emotional intelligence (Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee, 2000): Self-Awareness, Self-

Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management

Conceptualization: An Integrated Approach

Once the most influential models have been presented, there is still the open

question with which the section started. Are they complementary or exclusive? How

can we understand the different conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence? Is this a

sign of the impossibility of defining the concept? From my point of view, this is

definitively not the case. The study of the human mind and its implications in

behavior is an extremely complex issue. In addition, different perspectives may co-

exist focusing their attention on different elements.

11
The emotional intelligence models presented adopted different approaches. The

Mayer and Salovey Model puts an emphasis in the relationship between cognition

and emotion, talking about mental 'abilities' and eliminating human behavior as not

important for their construct. Bar-On Model, on the contrary, focuses its interest in the

relationship between emotions and motivation, thus, defining a model of well-being.

Motivation is linked with the fulfillment of some unsatisfied needs. When emotions

helps to move forward the reduction of internal tensions, satisfaction and well-being

occur as tension is reduced and the need subsides, usually to be replaced by

awareness of another need that requires attention (Auerback and Dolan, 1997).

Finally, Goleman's Model centers its attention to the relationship between emotions

and human behavior. These considerations may lead us to think that the different

approaches of emotional intelligence may coexist together.

To focus research efforts in different aspects of emotions can help to develop

different theoretical models, all valid. And adding the knowledge of all of them may

help us to understand the construct deeply. "While some argue that the goal of

research should be to identify and define a singular theoretical framework to be

labeled as 'correct' version of emotional intelligence, another approach would be to

acknowledge that having multiple theories can often serve to elucidate additional

aspects of complex psychological constructs" (Emmerling and Goleman, 2003).

Within the integrated approach proposed, it seems plausible that the different models

may coexist together as their theoretical bases are complementary. The debates

within the field discussing this possible harmony of the theoretical models are

intensified by Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2000) that make a distinction between EI

models that are mixed and those that are pure models, or ability models, focusing

exclusively on cognitive attitudes. Mixed models, they argue, contain a “mélange of

12
abilities, behaviors and general disposition and conflate personality attributes - such

as optimism and persistence - with mental ability”.

But, instead of debating whether emotional intelligence is a disposition or an ability,

"it may be wiser to say that the processing of emotional experience involves both

specific abilities and particular personality traits" (McCrae, 2000).

Leadership

Leadership is the spirit, compounded of the personality and vision./Sir William Slim/

Leadership is action, not position. / Donald H. Mc Gannon/

Leadership is all about adding value on people.

Mintzberg’s reflection on leadership

• Involve employees

• We are all leaders

• Encourage new ideas

• Leadership should be revolving

• Full engagement of all

• Commitment and drive

• Lead through action

• Interconnection of management and leadership

13
 Managers vs. Leaders
Managers Leaders
• Focus on things • Focus on people
• Do things right • Do the right things
• Plan • Inspire
• Organize • Influence
• Direct • Motivate
• Control • Build
• Follows the rules • Shape entities

Six Leadership Styles

(Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee 2004)

14
Situational Leadership Model

15
Any leader needs to lead himself/herself in order to lead others.

He has to be:

• confidence

• decisive

• emotionally capable

• visionary and think strategically,

• capable of motivating himself

• continuous learner

• tolerant to the unknown world

• skilful in using time and dealing with stress

• Positive attitude.

16
17
18
19
20