Demystifying 'EI' for an era of 'AI'

'Emotional Intelligence' has, over many decades, been subject to extensive scientific research and debate. Just like 'AI', it is very easily a subject of misunderstanding and mis-selling.

Popular psychology can lead people to believe that 'EI' is comparable to 'IQ', even that it is a kind of separate emotional adjunct to 'IQ', or to cognitive abilities. Popular neuroscience in general, especially when it is applied in leadership development and coaching, can oversimplify the relationships between emotion, human information processing, learning, memory, cognition, and the biological systems underpinning these functions.

In general, cleverness, whether it is analog, human and carbon based, or, digital, machine, and silicon based, seems to get more airtime in the public domain, than emotional competence, or indeed wisdom. It has been fascinating to note the prevalence of recent media speculation about the 'cognitive abilities' of political leaders. A very high threshold of intellectual ability is a prerequisite for anyone in a complex leadership role, sure. It is not enough.

What matters most is the skill with which individuals in positions of power make use of themselves in an integrated and human sense, for the greater good. Idealistic as it may seem, real leadership is the application of all our human capabilities as instruments of progress. This progress should not just be of their own tribe, or even species. Real intelligence promotes genuine progress rather than dangerous or destructive competition.

As we are seeing with AI, referring to anything as a form of 'intelligence' can be used to make it sound seductive, desirable, enigmatic, scientifically bold, aspirational. Any kind of intelligence - especially in the wrong hands or with the potential to be used for nefarious purposes - also has connotations of danger, stirring up deep-seated anxieties.

In this sense AI's might also be construed as aliens or pathogens, in that they may intrude into our lives like foreign bodies that we may not be able to understand or control to the extent we should. Some early results of AI experiments in social media and online 'information' - if we can still call it that - are playing out already in various ways around the world. The net result is escalating public hysteria and subclinical but nevertheless deeply dysfunctional behaviour which is becoming worryingly prevalent at a population level. Outbreaks of horrible violence all over the world are not random. They are being precipitated and encouraged - unintentionally - by online platforms and communication tools. We live at a time when developing our emotional competence, which translates also into our ability to make reasonable behavioural choices, is profoundly important to our individual and collective survival.

The ability to process, interpret, manage and make use of emotion, requires a web of interrelated personal and social competences which together can help people be effective in how they live and work. Emotional skills are developed very considerably during childhood and can also continue to be developed over a lifetime. Evidence suggests that such skills are unlikely to be nurtured by the addictive use of mobile phones. And emotional competences are highly contextual. This is not really something individuals or employers should treat like a narrow ability in the same way that psychologists and organizations have historically treated intelligence.

Recently psychological safety has achieved significant currency, as a concept and focus for organization development activities. I come across many who struggle with this concept because they believe that it is about working in a way that minimizes peoples' sense of vulnerability. In reality, the more psychologically safe you feel, the more vulnerable you are able to be, the more risks you are able to take, the more you are therefore able to stretch, and learn.

Psychological safety is not about hiding from challenging people or situations, which make ourselves or others uncomfortable. It is not about avoiding criticism. It is about increasing our openness to discomfort, to feedback and criticism because discomfort can and does enable our growth, and because we know that we can attribute positive intent to such feedback. Indeed, in 'gestalt' psychotherapy and coaching, which is a holistic, experiential approach, therapists set out to co-create 'safe emergencies' with and for their clients.

There are strong connections between managers and leaders who are able to demonstrate emotional intelligence in their approach to dealing with people, and the presence of psychological safety at work. Learning how to build teams which are emotionally healthy, and psychologically safe, is a critical feature of agile working and innovation. Being able to do this well and consistently, requires managers to be both self-aware and aware of others, sensing peoples' emotional responses to different managerial interventions.

All too often I am asked to help line managers develop EI in a few hours in very short one-off 'workshops'. In this case all I can do is raise each person's awareness about what it is and how it can be developed.

However, given more time to go deeper into its various facets, and then to draw connections to team climate, I able to help managers use emotional competence to build psychological safety for their teams. This is often a process of demystifying what is meant by these fancy-sounding terms, making them feel operationally relevant, and helping line leaders identify practical interventions that are relevant to their own teams. This can also require ongoing follow up and longer-term partnership with leadership teams as they develop their own efficacy as emotionally literate leaders.

Emotional and social competence is for everyone. It is especially a prerequisite for anyone with responsibility for other people. So some kind of training or coaching which is specifically targeted at helping to develop basic emotional management skills can only be conducive to healthier and more psychologically safe workplaces.

It is easy to make a start on this journey. This requires initial rounds of basic education for managers. The challenge is really to sustain emotionally skilled managerial and leadership behaviour, and to enable it at scale. That requires adequate investment in upskilling managers and and reinforcing the behaviour that supports psychological safety.

Existing leadership feedback data, such as engagement data, and existing 360-degree feedback data connected to an organization's existing leadership competences often have everything that an organization needs for leaders at any level to identify their areas of strength and weakness.

Alongside robust behavioural feedback, organizations benefit from the right kind of experiential learning that can help managers and leaders broaden their emotional and behavioural repertoire. This in turn supports greater agility, higher performance, and improved productivity in teams.

What does not necessarily help people is too much psychobabble.

Sincere apologies if I have indulged in this too much and too often myself, maybe even in this article. That's the lifelong challenge of being a psychologist.