Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

—RALPH WALDO EMERSON

This Chapter

I wanted to include a number of topics in this chapter, not all of which are related to each other. They contain areas I am following and trends in the field of leadership. The first covers some of the work related to the neuroscience of leadership. It is becoming popular to use work from neuropsychology and apply it to leadership. At MHS we've been leading the way with some of our research on executive functioning. We'll look at how it can apply to leadership.

Then I cover the topic of change. It seems that you can't really talk about leadership without dealing with change. Change is everywhere today, and, of course, we all react to change in different ways. I'll present some of the work that originated at Discovery Learning International (now part of MHS) and the Center for Creative Leadership that companies around the world have found useful in helping manage change in their organizations.

It seems that everywhere you look there is something about Millenials or Gen Zers. There is still some debate about the usefulness of the various generational distinctions and whether they even exist. Well, I won't deal with the speculation, just the data. We have the largest database of emotional intelligence test scores in the world, and we'll explore what our data say about these generational differences. There's nothing like evidence-based information.

A concept that gets talked about a lot is the idea of servant leadership. That is, the importance of starting out as a follower, and being a good follower, before you make it to leader. One of the groups that I've had the privilege to work with is the U.S. Navy SEALs, and I'll present some data from that group.

Perhaps the highest seat of power in organizations today is the board of directors. I have had the opportunity, through my teaching at The Directors College, to work with and test many individuals who sit on boards. It's pretty clear that the emotional intelligence level of the board can play a major factor in its success. I'll be presenting some new data on this group and look at gender differences of board members.

While I've presented a number of stories and anecdotes about leaders throughout the book, most books about leadership focus on the kinds of people we might expect to see as leaders. I like taking the theory of emotional intelligence and trying to see how it helps understand the more unusual, or out-of-the-box type of leader. In this section, I'll present a case study of someone whose background is probably unlike any leader that you've ever seen.

Finally, I'll look at some of what we know about improving leadership through emotional intelligence training. I'll highlight a study that looks at worldwide trends in leadership training and development and, specifically, emotional intelligence training in organizations. Then I'll present some research that demonstrates that emotionally intelligent leadership in organizations can be developed.

Neuroscience and Leadership

It's becoming quite popular in the business literature to start borrowing concepts from the neuroscience literature and applying them to leadership. At MHS, we are in the unique position of having done extensive research in neuroscience from both the clinical perspective, as well as having looked at it from the organizational/business angle.

Some of the concepts making their way from neuroscience to the executive suite comes from research on executive functioning of the brain. Neuropsychologists investigate brain-behavior relationships by using informal and standardized methods to understand an individual's functioning across a wide variety of areas, including cognitive, language, emotional, social, and motor activities. Technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), computed tomography (CT), and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) have been used to help localize brain-behavior relationships.

As well, neuropsychological tests play an important role in quantifying the cognitive abilities necessary for effective thinking, executive function, problem solving, learning, and behavior and in measuring behavioral symptoms associated with executive function. At MHS, we publish one of the most widely used measures of executive functioning in the clinical and education marketplace, the Comprehensive Executive Functioning Inventory (CEFI).¹ We've assessed and analyzed tens of thousands of individuals' abilities in this area.

Executive function has become an overall term for cognitive processes such as planning, working memory, attention, problem solving, reasoning, inhibition, mental flexibility, multitasking, initiation, and monitoring of actions. These cognitive processes are largely carried out by prefrontal areas of the frontal lobe. These prefrontal areas include the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex and the orbital frontal cortex. The dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex is thought to be involved with processing of information, such as integrating different dimensions of cognition and behavior. The anterior cingulate cortex is believed to be involved in emotional drivers, experience, and integration. Finally, the orbital frontal cortex is considered to play a key role in impulse control, maintenance of set (ability to follow rules), monitoring ongoing behavior, and socially appropriate behavior. The orbital frontal cortex also has a role in representing the value of reward based on sensory stimuli and evaluating subjective emotional experience.²

In the research literature there is still not a single, agreed-upon definition of executive function, nor is there consensus on what it encompasses. Although various definitions have been proposed, there is a central theme that executive function includes exertion of control over automatic responses in order to regulate autonomous, goal-directed behavior. Inhibiting automatic responses and controlling voluntary behavior is said to be accomplished by a set of overlapping cognitive abilities associated with the prefrontal cortex and interconnected subcortical system.³

As a result of our research at MHS, we have identified a number of functions that make up our model of executive functioning in adults.⁴ These are shown in Figure 17.1.

We've taken these factors from our clinical work and modified them for the organizational context. We've made changes to the items and scales to be applicable for leadership in organizations. We've begun to pilot the new inventory with hundreds of leaders and nonleaders from a variety of organizations. All leaders in our sample managed at least one direct report.

The data conformed to a two-factor model. One factor is referred to as Managing Myself and Others; the second factor is Managing the Organization. We'll be subjecting this tool to more research studies looking at how the various scales may influence successful functioning at the executive level in organizations.

The Managing Myself/Others factor includes the following scales:

• Attention
• Emotion Regulation
• Flexibility
• Growth Mind-Set
• Inhibitory Control
• Initiation
• Interpersonal
• Organization
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Planning

The Managing the Organization factor includes the following scales:

• Analytical and Systems Thinking
• Foresight
• Organizational Planning
• Strategic Visioning
• We hope in due time to be able to flesh out these areas in more detail and determine which functions are most important for successful leadership.

How Do We Manage Change?

One thing we can be certain about in today's business environment is that things are not going to stay the same. Change is a part of any organization, anywhere in the world today. Even though most leaders know change is inevitable, there has been little done to better understand or plan for the inevitable. In a report by Christopher Musselwhite of Discovery Learning International (now part of Multi-Health Systems), a project is described that helps us better understand change. In addition, an instrument was developed to help leaders deal with change in their organizations.⁵

The report explores the research around how people react to change in different ways. Although we can all experience a similar situation that requires change, we tend to respond to these situations in our own unique style. Our preference for dealing with change, whether reacting to it or initiating it, can be described and measured along a continuum that ranges from a preference for gradual incremental change to significant and wholesale change. These preferences are different and can sometimes vary by occupational groups or even industries. Understanding these preferences can, in part, explain conflict that occurs between individuals during the change implementation process. It also helps us understand noticeable differences between professions, organizational functions, and entire industries.

By understanding these change preferences, it is possible to better match change strategies to: individuals, situations, and desired outcomes. Musselwhite created the Change Style Preference model, which helps reframe existing beliefs and ideas about what constitutes good and bad, successful and unsuccessful change. He presents the benefits as follows:

This ultimately produces more effective organizations, happier workers, and a more flexible work force. When people can understand the connection between the need for change, the change strategy, and their own comfort level with the change, they are much more willing to bend. A new dialogue can be created which has the capacity to unfreeze and redefine our mental models about desirable organizational change, whatever our personal preferences may be.

Musselwhite created the Change Style Indicator (CSI), which is a 22-item self-assessment tool that measures an individual's preference for creating and responding to change. The indicator helps people find where they fit on a continuous scale that includes three preferences.

On one end of the continuum are conservers. They are characterized as people who prefer a gradual but continuous approach to change. Conservers prefer the current circumstances to the unknown. The goal of the conserver is to better use the organization's resources, while preserving existing structure. When this approach is applied over time, the outcome can be significant change, which does not threaten or disrupt the stability of the organization.

At the other end of the continuum are originators. Originators are characterized as people who prefer a quicker and more radical approach to change. If conservers represent the Total Quality Management (TQM) approach to change, then originators are the reengineering champions. When this approach is applied effectively, the outcome can be very significant change, which occurs systemically and quickly. With the originator approach to change, existing organizational structure will be challenged and systemic change can occur. Musselwhite's research has shown that conservers and originators each account for about 25 percent of the general population.

Pragmatists fall between conservers and originators on the Change Style Preference model and account for the remaining 50 percent of the general population. Pragmatists may appear reasonable, practical, agreeable, and flexible. However, to conservers and originators pragmatists may appear noncommittal or indecisive. Pragmatists tend to solve problems in ways that emphasize practical, workable outcomes and focus more on results than preserving or challenging organizational structure. Pragmatists are perceived to be more team-oriented than either conservers or originators.

Participants who take the Change Style Inventory receive their scores on a graph like Figure 17.2.

The Change Style Inventory has been used successfully since 1996 in a variety of programs and settings. In addition to extensive use in North America, the instrument has been used with success by Motorola University in management development programs in China and India. It has been used with engineers in South Korea, by bankers in England, by manufacturing executives and business students in Italy, and by high school students in Indonesia. Applications have ranged from management and leadership assessment and development to organizational work redesign efforts. The tool and its implementation have helped many individuals and organizations better manage the change process.

How Gen Zers Will Impact the Workplace

Generation Z (ages 17–26, born between 1990 and 2000) is catching the attention of marketers, media, and the entertainment industry. But what makes this new generation different? As the newest cohort begins to enter the workforce, it's time to evaluate how they stack up to previous generations and how leaders may need to prepare for the changing capabilities of their workforce.

It seems like every generation complains about what the newest cohort brings to the table in terms of work skills, and this group is no different in that respect. Employers also tend to be critical about the newest group's behaviors and attitudes to work. These recurring themes have transcended from the GI generation, to Mature, to Baby Boomer, to Gen X, Y Millennials, and now Z. Although each generation seems to have adjusted to their own work patterns.

This time, however, things may actually be somewhat different. The Gen Z cohort is different from their parents and grandparents. We looked at a sample of 259,000 working people ages 15–75 selected from our worldwide data of approximately 2 million people tested for their emotional intelligence skills with the EQ-i 2.0. As previously stated, emotional intelligence is a set of emotional and social skills that influence the way we perceive and express ourselves, develop and maintain social relationships, cope with challenges, and use emotional information in an effective and meaningful way. The generational comparisons can be seen in Figure 17.3.

Our data shows that Gen Zers:

• Score significantly lower in independence:
  • 5.1 points lower than Generation Y (ages 27–38)
  • 7.5 points lower than Generation X (ages 39–50)
  • 8.2 points lower less than Baby Boomers (ages 51–70)
• Struggle with emotional problem solving, scoring an average of 6.6 points lower than Generation Y and X, and Baby Boomers (ages 51–70)
• Are indecisive, with an average 5.5 points lower decision-making score than previous generations
• Don't deal as well with stress, almost 5 points lower than previous generations
• Yet are not significantly less happy than other generations, despite their overall lower emotional intelligence

The lowest score of Gen Zers is in independence. This group wants to check things out with others more than their predecessors. Even though they have more information available than ever before—all at the tips of their fingers via smartphone; they still depend more on others before taking action. They're less sure of themselves and want to confirm that they are making the right moves. They will want to check with peers, social media, and websites before acting, more than other groups tend to. They also have a greater need for approval before they are ready to carry out tasks.

This may be partially due to another skill they score low on–emotional problem solving. This isn't math or science logical problem solving; it involves the influence of emotions when solving real-life problems. Good problem solving requires the appropriate use of emotions—in other words, not too much or too little. However, this group seems to let emotions get in the way of sound decision making.

Finally, stress tolerance differentiates this group from preceding generations. When things start to get out of control or emotions run high, don't look to the Gen Zer to manage the situation. This group would rather avoid the stress, not deal with it at all, or, if they choose to not avoid the situation, they may not adequately manage the situation.

While this may seem like a bit of an overgeneralization, this is the pattern we find when looking at a large group of cohorts. Of course, there are exceptions in every group, but these are signs to look for when selecting, hiring, or training this group. Also, not all the news is bad. This cohort has been found to have a number of positive attributes as well. They are digitally aware, socially conscious, eager to learn, and driven by purpose or meaningful work. So, if you employ this group it will be important to stress the meaningfulness and contribution of the work they perform.

How do some of the challenges of Gen Zers play out in everyday life? This group is more dependent on others. They have a greater need for approval. So whether it's moving out on their own, purchasing health insurance, getting a car, switching jobs, they are more likely to depend on significant others, family, or friends before making that final move. This indecision may influence their performance at work if they are unable to take initiative without first seeking approval.

Gen Z also struggles with “emotional problem solving.” What does this mean exactly, and what can companies do to help their younger employees cope with this problem? Emotional problem solving refers to being able to come up with solutions to problems without using too much or too little emotion. Whatever problem we're attempting to solve, whether it's which job to take or which car to buy, there's always an emotional component involved. When emotion gets in the way of solving problems, we tend to go off course, and it can lead to poor decision making.

When you use too much emotion in a situation, such as anxiety, you can be sidetracked and make poor decisions. If you use too little emotion, you can make a very logical decision, but one that you may not ultimately feel good about.

Leaders can help guide Gen Zers in how they go about coming up with solutions to problems. Generally, this group welcomes coaching and additional training. Coaching should ensure that they have an opportunity to generate a number of solutions to problems they are working on, and that they receive some guidance and direction when it comes to selecting and implementing solutions. Teach them to come to you with solutions, not problems. Then go through the potential solutions with them, evaluating the potential consequences together.

This group wants more guidance than other cohorts and welcomes multifaceted learning opportunities. So use face-to-face time as well as online training solutions. Do not just use digital solutions with this group; they highly value in-person time.

Gen Z is less efficient at decision making. How does this affect them in the workplace? Being less efficient in decision making means that when they make decisions they can be distracted by their emotions or other factors. It's important to be clear about tasks you want accomplished. You don't need to tell them how to do it, but indicate the kinds of solutions you are looking for. You want to ensure they see the problem as it is; they don't jump too quickly (or take too long) in coming up with solutions. And you don't want them to be overwhelmed with the size or nature of the job.

Being direct and having clear expectations will help keep this group on task. They are fast learners and can be very creative. Also, it's important to reinforce the importance of the work they are doing. This group values meaningful work.

The distance between Gen Z and previous generations seems to go up with age. How much of these trends can be attributed to youth/inexperience? Some of the trends we see in emotional intelligence are age related. That is, we get better at certain skills with experience. We learn to be more patient, take more things in stride without overreacting, and concern ourselves more with the needs of others. We also get better at managing ourselves and our emotions. So you would expect to see certain increases occur with age or maturity.

However, there seem to be some larger than expected gaps with this group. The gaps in the areas identified: independence, problem solving, and stress tolerance, are greater than what you would expect from age differences alone. Other differences, in component of emotional intelligence scores, that we see in this group compared with the other groups, are more in line with the expectations of natural growth.

How Does the Servant Leader Model Relate to Emotional Intelligence?

What is servant leadership, and how does it relate to emotional intelligence? The idea of servant leadership dates back to ancient philosophy. The following quote is attributed to fourth-century BCE Indian teacher, philosopher, economist, jurist, and royal adviser, Chanakya. He wrote, in the fourth century BCE, in his book Arthashastra (ancient Indian treatise on statecraft):

the king [leader] shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects [followers]

the king [leader] is a paid servant and enjoys the resources of the state together with the people.

While servant leadership is a timeless concept, the phrase “servant leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in “The Servant as Leader,” an essay that he first published in 1970 and revised in 1991.⁶

In that essay, Greenleaf wrote:

The servant-leader is servant first.…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

In terms of leadership styles, servant leadership can be most likely associated with the participative leadership style. There have been many studies of the servant leadership model, but only a few looking at the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership.

In a paper drawing a parallel between servant leadership and the history of leadership in the United States Navy SEALs, LCDR (Ret) Chris Auger, a former active duty Navy SEAL and executive officer at the Center for SEAL and SWCC (Special Warfare Combatant Crewman), included the connection with emotional intelligence. He describes how the servant leader model is embedded in Navy SEAL training, “The entire program is shaped around pushing the individual beyond their perceived level of performance and then introducing them to the power of the Team. Throughout the training each candidate is expected to follow and lead various physical and intellectual blocks of training. This further reinforces the servant follower-leader mindset.”⁷

Auger points out how Naval Special Warfare discovered, through the use of the EQ-i 2.0 group profile, that their top EQ behaviors were self-actualization, problem solving, stress tolerance, self-regard, and social responsibility as seen in Figure 17.4. They also discovered that their lowest EQ behaviors were emotional expression, empathy, and interpersonal relationships.

In knowing the top three strengths and bottom three, an organization can understand whether behaviors are being overused or underused. The example from the SEALs is that having low empathy when going into a combat situation is necessary for the survival of you and your teammates. However, after the shooting has stopped, it is important to dial up the empathy to lead through the situation which in many cases involves noncombatants and civilians. Similar examples of “dialing-up” empathy can be found in how police officers respond to volatile situations.

I had the privilege of working with Chris and the Navy SEALs using the EQ-i 2.0 in both Virginia Beach and San Diego. As emotional intelligence relates to servant leadership, I found that assessing social responsibility helps reinforce the service component of leadership. It enables leaders and aspiring leaders to evaluate the concern one has for others. Auger describes how the SEAL training process allows for career maturation as subject matter experts eventually take on leadership positions. Throughout the process, the leader and follower mentalities are maintained. One of the strengths of the operational unit is that everyone knows how to step in and step out of their follower and leader roles. The ability to transfer in, and out of, leader and follower roles is becoming increasingly important with the rise of remote work and leaderless teams.

Interestingly, in Figure 17.5 I've compared some samples of emotional intelligence scores from groups I've tested. The Navy SEAL group is my highest-scoring group to date, surpassing navy pilots (many of whom were Top Gun trained), corporate CEOs, and a group of high-level female C-suite executives. The computer programmers were added to round out the group.

Using the EQ 360, Jane Waddell took a direct look at the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership.⁸ Her study used data from 44 professional leaders to examine the relationship of emotional intelligence to servant leadership attribution. The Servant Leadership Inventory⁹ was used to measure the seven virtues of a servant leader according to Patterson's model. The leader's emotional intelligence was measured by the followers' ratings on the EQ-360.

Waddell found that there was a positive relationship between servant leadership attribution and the leader's emotional intelligence, as rated by followers. She reported that 56.7 percent of the variance in servant leadership attribution was accounted for by only one of the EQ-360's subscales, the followers' perception of the leader's reality testing. Reality testing is described as the ability to accurately size up a situation. In this instance, it allows the servant leader to accurately assess the follower's highest priority needs.

Working one's way up from follower to leader can help set in place a level of reality testing that enables leaders to be more aware of not just followers' needs, but those of customers and partners. Many people who have experienced working at the front lines of an organization have direct experience of the concerns and wishes of customers.

Leading from the Top: Effective Boards of Directors

Boards of directors have enormous responsibility in managing the major for-profit and nonprofit organizations around the world. What does it take to make a successful board of directors? One of the best reports looking at what differentiates great boards from the rest was done by Jeffery Sonnenfeld and published in Harvard Business Review.¹⁰ He looked at traditional measures of a board's performance—board members' attendance at board meetings, equity involvement of board members, board member skills (technical, e.g., finance), board members' ages, presence of past CEOs, independence of board members from the organization, board size, committees, and other factors. None of these factors differentiated high-functioning boards from the poorly functioning. Companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco had great boards based on some of these criteria, but it made no difference in the end. The companies failed dramatically.

The bottom line, according to Sonnenfeld, is the human element, the social component—the people. He concludes, “What distinguishes exemplary boards is that they are robust, effective social systems.”

What are those social systems? This is something I've had the opportunity to investigate. I've been on the teaching faculty for a number of years at The Directors College, which is the original university-accredited corporate director education program in Canada. It was founded in 2003 and is a joint venture between The Conference Board of Canada and the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University. The approach at The Directors College is unique. It's an immersive, residential program that allows participants to put the lessons learned in the classroom into practice on the board. The mission of the college is to advance transformative governance for the benefit of business and society—this is at the heart of their Gold Standard in Governance Education.

As part of the course, participants take the EQ-i 2.0 to learn more about their strengths and challenges and to apply their self-awareness in their working groups. The composite scores of a large number of participants (n = 278) are presented in Figure 17.6.

Their highest composites are in Stress Management and Decision Making. Most of these participants have many years' experience working in organizations and have worked their way up the ladder to the senior management level. Their current, or next step, is sitting on a board of a for-profit or nonprofit organization. They have dealt with stress throughout their career and at this stage are more balanced in dealing with difficult situations. Also, they have been at a decision-making level for a significant amount of time and therefore manage the decision-making process well.

The top three strengths for this group can be seen in Figure 17.7.

The top strength of this group is in Stress Tolerance. As previously mentioned, these seasoned executives have had many years' experience in management and tend not to get too stressed by work events. Their second strength is in Self-Actualization. Most of these people are at a stage in their career where they want to learn and give back. For example, they chose (and paid) to take this course that will teach them a great deal about serving on a board. They see themselves as contributing their knowledge and skills at a new level.

The emotional intelligence challenges for this group can be seen in Figure 17.8.

Their top three challenges for these directors are Empathy, Interpersonal Relationship, and Emotional Expression. This is not too surprising considering many of the participants of this course are highly technically skilled professionals. They include accountants, lawyers, and engineers. These are generally very business-oriented types and not naturally empathic or sociable. They tend to not be very emotionally expressive. As senior managers, they like to keep their thoughts and feelings close to the chest.

Part of what they learn in the course is to be more open socially, to network, and be more transparent emotionally. As a director, it's helpful for other board members and the senior staff to know where you are coming from, why you feel the way you do about an issue, as well as how strongly you feel. Board members need to trust each other and be willing to have candid discussions. Disagreements should be open and focused on the merit of one's case guided by what's best for the organization.

One of my interests has been differences between male and female board members. I've had the opportunity to get a reasonably sized sample of male and female directors. In Figure 17.9, you can see the significantly different composite scores.

Although at first glance there appears to be large differences between males and females, there was only one composite with a significant difference. Female board members scored higher than males in the Interpersonal composite; males didn't score higher than females in any of the composites.

The specific EQ-i 2.0 scales that differentiated the sexes can be seen in Figure 17.10.

These differences, showing men having higher self-regard, and women having significantly higher scores in emotional self-awareness, emotional expression, and empathy, are slightly different from our general norms and professional norms data, which include hundreds of thousands of cases. In the general population, there are no overall differences in total EQ-i 2.0 scores, but women score higher than men in emotional self-awareness, emotional expression, and empathy. Men, on the other hand, score higher in independence, problem solving, and stress tolerance.¹¹

In this sample of directors, women have basically closed the gap in the areas men traditionally score higher in—independence, stress tolerance, and problems solving. It seems the women who make it to this level—senior executives moving on to boards, bring some extra skills with them to the boardroom. Unfortunately, the number of women getting to the boardroom is still much lower than men.

What difference does it make having females on the board of directors? The New York Times reported on a study by Credit Suisse looking at gender differences of board members.¹² They examined almost 2,400 global corporations from 2005 to 2011, including the years directly preceding and following the financial crisis, and found that large-cap companies with at least one woman on their boards outperformed comparable companies with all-male boards by 26 percent.

The report continued, “Some might assume that there was a cost to this as well, that boards with women must have been excessively cautious before the financial crisis of 2008.…Not so. From 2005 to 2007, Credit Suisse also found, the stock performance of companies with women on their boards essentially matched performance of companies with all-male boards. Nothing lost, but much gained.”

It could be that women with higher scores in emotional self-awareness, emotional expression, and empathy can act as a stabilizing force, especially in times of crisis.

What Can We Learn from Unusual Leaders?

Over the course of time, I've had the opportunity to meet hundreds of leaders. I have interviewed, worked with, psychologically tested, coached, learned from, taught, and interacted in many ways with many different types of leaders. In general, most leaders I've met would not surprise you. They have many of the attributes you would expect. Most have good, or excellent, educations. For the most part, they tend to have good childhood backgrounds and histories, perhaps some experiencing bumps in the road—parents divorced, loss of a parent or sibling, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, lower middle class upbringing, or an immigrant family. Their personalities are generally what you would expect, with some individual variances—confident, passionate, intelligent, extraverted, focused, honest, engaged, social, dominant, decisive, conscientious, proud, authoritative, and so on.

Most leadership theories and books focus on the prototypical kind of leader that you would expect to see leading an organization. But what makes the study of leadership interesting is when you try to explain leaders that don't fit in the box. If we can look at the unusual, outside the box kind of leaders, and understand their success, we may be better at understanding leadership in general.

Allow me to tell you a story about one outside the box leader, Lia Grimanis. I get hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from people I don't know. Many are trying to sell me something, others are looking for employment, and some just want answers to questions. Regardless, like many busy people, I can't answer all the requests I get. Some informational requests, for example, I delegate to others.

One day I got a request from someone that struck me as a bit unusual. The nature of the request, asking for information about emotional intelligence, was not unusual. But something that struck me was on the signature line of the note—2 Time Guinness World Record Holder. See Lia pull a jet airplane.

Of course, I was intrigued. I then got in touch with Lia Grimanis. We soon met, and I got to hear her story. Lia is the founder and CEO of a charity. She was listed in Canada's Financial Post Magazine as one of Canada's 100 Most Powerful Women. She won Chatelaine's (Canadian Magazine) Woman of the Year Award. She also appeared on the NBC Today Show. And, yes, she's pulled not one, but two airplanes. Grimanis now holds two Guinness World Records: “Heaviest Vehicle Pulled 100 feet by a Woman” (18,000 pounds) and “Heaviest Vehicle Pulled in High Heels” (15,000 pounds).

Prior to her forming and leading a charity, Lia worked in the business world. She spent 18 years managing complex projects in the technology sector. She was a high-earning, successful sales professional for technology solutions with a large software company. Her last corporate position was a regional head of Financial Services, Americas, for the global technology firm, TIBCO Software.

Most of this story seems conventional. However, there is a twist to Lia's story. Lia spent some of her adolescence as a homeless person. She left an abusive family home in her late teens and ended up couch surfing and living in a shelter for the homeless. She never completed high school. The shelter was her primary support. She struggled to survive on the streets of Toronto. She was suicidal, experienced depression and other mental health challenges (possible autism spectrum disorder), but she managed to keep hope alive.

During her time in the homeless shelter, she made two promises to herself—to become successful and to fulfill her big dreams. One of those dreams was owning a motorcycle, which she has since accomplished. Another was to play the harp, which she saw as an elitist instrument, something unusual for someone growing up in poverty (she had a stipend of a dollar a day at the homeless shelter). She has since earned a scholarship at the Royal Conservatory for Music.

Lia shared a few of her other accomplishments with me. She was the first Canadian to complete the Fjordrally (a 1,000 km motorcycle rally on the ice and snow in subarctic Norway), she's fed sharks underwater without a cage, hung out in a pit of live alligators, learned to joust in full armor, wing walked, learned to pilot a helicopter, driven a tank in east Germany, scaled an 80-foot tree, built a treehouse, learned falconry, and proposed to her partner while parahawking. Oh, and she also mentioned that she was flying a helicopter before she ever owned a vehicle to drive.

Lia's charity is called Up With Women and is dedicated to helping recently homeless at-risk women rebuild their careers. She does this in an unconventional way: through partnering clients with highly skilled business coaches and professionals for biweekly career coaching, group development, and highly focused workshops. She targets a very challenged group of women and some are physically challenged. Others have fled domestic abuse or have immigrated as refugees. Some are single moms, straight out of family shelters.

How has her success rate been? Within the first three months of starting in the program, 80 percent of their clients (first cohort of 20 women) were employed. Confidence, in terms of score out of 10, had gone up from 5.3 to 7.9 on average. Over the course of the year, they have seen these achievements also translate into small-business start-ups by 50 percent of their program participants.

Lia believes emotional intelligence can be a big part of the success story for her clients. We've partnered with Lia and her program to measure the emotional intelligence at the beginning of their clients' journey, in an effort to help coaches focus on areas of strength and challenge. We hope to posttest a sample of these women to document changes in these areas, and validate these against real-world gains.

What about Lia's own story? How did she become a successful leader? Lia took the EQ-i 2.0, and her results are seen in Figure 17.11.

Lia's strengths are in Emotional Expression, Independence, and Self-Actualization. Her challenges are in Empathy, Interpersonal Relationship, and Reality Testing. One of the first things you notice about Lia is that she is very expressive. She captures your attention immediately and has been very successful presenting her story and representing her passion in presentations, one-on-one meetings, and in media interviews. She's also very independent. Surviving trauma, poverty, and homelessness at an early age contributes to that. Having to fend for herself for so much of her life, she has learned to follow her heart and make things work. Her Self-Actualization score represents her discovering her life's work and her passion for the direction she's headed.

Lia's lower scores can be instructive as well. Her low Empathy is something Lia has grappled with for many years. This is also true for Interpersonal Skills and Reality Testing. Lia has long suspected she has signs of Asperger's, on the autistic spectrum, and after being tested as an adult was found to fall within the autism spectrum. She has deliberately taught herself to compensate for these skills that she is aware enough to know are deficient. She even studied, while on the streets and homeless, how other people interacted with one another. She watched people socializing, looking through restaurant windows. She learned about making eye contact, stopping herself from talking when the other person wanted to speak, and many other social graces that many of us take for granted.

Lia has been successful despite some of these shortcomings. Other leaders we know to be successful are also reported to have had challenges in their interpersonal relationships—Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, among others. How is it that some leaders can succeed, in spite of challenges in interpersonal skills? Clearly, they have compensated, either by struggling more, suffering more, or sheer persistence.

Using the Four Pillars

What does stand out for Lia is her strength in our four pillars of leadership. She is very authentic in her presentation, and her life story is as real as can be. She's had to overcome serious struggles in her life. She is a strong advocate of coaching and not only has coaching helped her achieve more in life, she now uses a coaching model to help other women in need. She is high on insight as she has a purpose, which is to help homeless women improve their lives. She communicates this purpose very effectively. Finally, as far as innovation, she has demonstrated many innovations in her methods of helping people. And, of course, pulling an airplane is one that sticks in my mind.

Investing in Improving Leaders' Emotional Intelligence

There have been many studies and many examples of programs that have been designed to improve a leader's emotional intelligence. Unfortunately, some of the work in this area has been done with Fortune 100 companies that prefer we do not share their data, largely for competitive reasons. However, there is research we can share, as well as information about the program designed by our own MHS Organizational Development (OD) group that organizations are taking and using in-house for their leader development.

First, let's look at the state-of-the-art in organizational leadership training of emotional intelligence. The Human Capital Institute, together with Multi-Health Systems, undertook a study looking at these practices in organizations around the world.¹³ We surveyed 784 respondents representing more than 500 organizations worldwide. These included 73 percent who were leaders within the organizations and 27 percent of whom were individual contributors or line workers. The majority of respondents were in human resources/recruiting (56 percent), and 19 percent were in executive management. Organization size ranged from less than 100 employees to more than 20,000. Industries included government, health care, financial services, real estate, automotive, IT/software, chemical/energy/utilities, retail, construction, pharma, food and beverage, telecom, defense, and more.

One of the key findings was that more than half of survey respondents think the current leadership development efforts at their organizations are less than effective. While there was some disagreement between staff and leaders over priorities for leadership training (Chapter 12's “Coaching” section pointed out that staff rated coaching as a higher priority than managers did), communication, interpersonal skills, and self-awareness were seen as important by everyone. Leaders believed the most important skills they need were adaptability, problem solving, and interpersonal skills. Staff believed the most important leadership skills were coaching, empathy, and interpersonal skills.

The survey looked at the investment organizations made in leadership training. It found that organizations that spend more than 31 percent of their annual training and development budgets on leadership development were 12 percent more likely to report increased revenue. Looking at different types of training that was being provided, they found that 60 percent of those who use emotional intelligence assessments said they were effective or very effective. Equally efficient methods of development included executive coaching, job rotations, and global assignments.

Many organizations, however, are not yet tapping into the potential of emotional intelligence. In fact, 29 percent of survey respondents report that emotional intelligence is not a focus for their organization. That's unfortunate because it was also reported that organizations that value and widely use emotional intelligence were 3.2 times more effective at leadership development. In other words, there is a 31 percent gap in leadership development effectiveness between organizations where emotional intelligence is valued, versus those in which it is not.

Organizations that integrate emotional intelligence in at least two different ways are 25 percent more likely to have extremely effective leadership development. In contrast, only 15 percent of organizations that do not widely implement emotional intelligence report effective leadership development. Incorporating emotional intelligence as part of leadership coaching supports higher performance. When organizations incorporate emotional intelligence in leadership coaching, they are 36 percent more likely to report effective emotional intelligence training performance.

Finally, the report looked at the bottom line, revenue effects of measuring emotional intelligence through the use of assessments, as seen in Figure 17.12. Using assessments to track or measure emotional intelligence was found to help support positive revenue growth rates. While many factors impact revenue growth, organizations that measure emotional intelligence are 16 percent more likely to report positive revenue growth.

A Study Increasing Leaders' Emotional Intelligence

While it's difficult to validate the effectiveness of leadership programs, and whether they make any measurable differences in an organization, there are some examples of emotional intelligence training programs making a difference. One such program was reported on by Mark Slaski and Susan Cartwright.¹⁴

The aim of this study was to investigate whether emotional intelligence could be developed in managers, and if so, whether increased emotional intelligence has a beneficial impact on health, well-being, and performance.

In their study, they looked at 120 managers from a large U.K. retail chain who volunteered for the research. These managers were assigned to either a training or a control group. The training group, of 60 managers, attended a developmental emotional intelligence training program for one day per week over a four-week period. The control group of 60 managers received no training at all.

In addition to demographic questionnaires, all managers completed the EQ-i, a general health questionnaire, a psychological outcomes questionnaire, and a stress index. To measure any performance changes, their immediate supervisors completed a performance management tool that evaluated 16 performance factors used by the organization. Qualitative performance data was also collected from their direct managers. These assessments were completed prior to the program starting and six months after completion. A six-month time frame was chosen in order to give participants enough time to practice the exercises given and consolidate their skill development.

At the end of six months, the training participant's EQ-i scores significantly increased. During the same period, the control group's average EQ-i score dropped slightly. Interestingly, for the control group, morale, and quality of life scores were significantly poorer over time and distress had significantly increased, suggesting that this study took place in an organizational climate of increasing stress and falling morale. The training group, however, had increased morale, quality of life, and lower stress, all at significant levels.

There was no significant difference in the performance review indicator that was used. The authors claim that this may have been due to the nature of the tool, which failed to capture some of the more emotion-laden management competencies. However, the qualitative measure indicated that there was improvement seen by the managers' supervisors for many of the training participants.

This study helps document some of what I believe and have seen in organizations for years. Improving emotional intelligence can have many benefits that go beyond the workplace. Leaders with high emotional intelligence tend to be happier, less stressed, and generally have a better quality of life. When I present this information in organizations around the world, one of the questions I get asked is why we don't teach these skills earlier. Why do we wait until people are already so deep into their careers? Well the good news is that we developed an emotional intelligence program for use in colleges and universities.¹⁵ The EQ-i has been adapted for use by college-aged students, and there is a workbook and resource materials for instructors. The program is widely used in colleges and universities throughout North America and is starting to be adopted internationally.

Emotional Intelligence Training in Organizations

There are now thousands of trainers around the world that have been certified to use the EQ-i 2.0 in organizations and higher education. As well, the Organizational Development (OD) group at MHS has put together leadership programs that are already being used in a number of organizations. The Leading Strategically with Emotional Intelligence program is a two-day experiential training program for established leaders looking to increase their skills in leading others. This program can be run in organizations with eight or more participants. To learn more about these and other programs you can visit mhs.com or send me an email at [email protected].

It is my hope that this book has provided you with new information that you can use in your quest to become a better leader. The goals of this book have been (a) to help you better understand what emotional intelligence is, (b) to show you how emotional intelligence is a crucial part of the Four-Pillar Model, (c) to demonstrate how emotional intelligence encompasses behaviors that facilitate leadership effectiveness for both individuals and the organization, and, finally, (d) to convince you that developing emotional intelligence is possible. If I have succeeded in at least some of these goals I feel gratified. Thank you for coming along with me on this journey.