I love this Manifesto.

A lot of this is familiar, but I like how he has managed the principles based on the 24 Character strengths and virtues from Positive Psychology. Essentially Michael Lee Stallard describes how our individual efforts can bring about good organisational climates… I particularly like to include schools in this….

The bottom line is that connection plays a critical part in improving individual performance. People who are more connected with others fare better in life than those who are less connected. Connection, because it meets our human needs, makes people more trusting, more cooperative, more empathetic, more enthusiastic, more optimistic, more energetic, more creative and better problem solvers. It creates the type of environment in which people want to help their colleagues. They are more open to share information that helps decision makers become better-informed. The openness that emerges in a trusting and cooperative environment creates a robust marketplace of ideas that stimulates innovation.

It feels like summertime here - glorious, peaceful, and relaxed. The scent of jasmine is pouring in through my office windows along with the gently cooling evening air.

Yesterday I was talking with a client/friend about where he needs to put energy in his business. Hands down: “relationships.” Reaching out and connecting, mostly externally and also internally. He admitted he wasn’t doing it the way he wanted, and part of me wanted to say, “but that’s so easy!”

Then I realized that his reason for not doing this is much the same as my reason for not exercising (something he’s great at, by the way): In two completely different challenges, we each feel inadequate - incompetent - and without real hope that our efforts will work.

And we each find it incredibly difficult to persevere… and all too easy to slide that task to the bottom of the pile. I am sure there is value and insight in this feeling, some clarity to be found, but even in this quite jasmine gentleness of evening, the wisdom is beyond me.

A survey in 2000 found that the most frequently expressed emotion at work was anger and the least frequently expressed emotion was joy.  When I mentioned this to a group of b-school students a few days ago most were not surprised. Anger, they report, is common in their work experience. Expressing joy is associated with being a ‘lightweight’. It is not professional. Anger is associated with power, joy with weakness. This is obviously a problem for all of us. While anger has a place and can be an intelligent emotion, joy and other positive emotions are critical to idea generation and enhancing cooperation.  The question is, how do we express joy, or happiness, or as Josh has noted, appreciation and gratitude, in a way that is accepted and heard by people?  And how can we convince leaders of the importance - and ‘professionalism’ - of the expression of joy?

What are the qualities of a President of the United States who takes on the mantle of leader? On the MSNBC program “Tim Russert,” Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, shared the qualities she feels we should be looking for in the President of the United States. Here are the qualities she submitted:

*withstanding adversity

*diverse perspectives

*loyalty

*admitting mistakes

*managing emotions

*defining goals

*knowing how to relax

Throughout the entire hour program it was evident to me as a emotional intelligence practitioner that she was primarily talking about emotional intelligence. In her discussion about “withstanding adversity” she talked of former presidents and the presidential candidates of 2008. The practice of optimism, resiliency, and perseverance modeled for others can bring energy and power to those they lead. The leaders have been “tested.” We know from the study of many leaders, they have had to withstand enormous obstables, “picked themselves up,” and went forward.

“Diverse perspectives” relates to how leaders learn from others, including from those with whom they disagree on many issues. A leader surrounding themselves with only “yes people” only hears their own voice and views.  They are not challenged to revisit their beliefs and perhaps even enrich their beliefs, if they are not listening to others.With a leader utilizing their emotional literacy, navigating emotions, empathy, and noble goals, really all of the EI competencies, this is when they truly are able to engage others in decision-making. Without engaging “diverse perspectives” a leader is not connected to the relationships they have with the people.

The attributes of “loyalty” and “admitting mistakes” can really be discussed together in that the loyalty that the President has for his/her people is shown most vividly when being true to oneself. Admitting mistakes in the work for the citizenry can show a loyalty that transcends any other work with which the President focuses. Most of the emotional intelligence competencies ring through these qualities.

“Managing emotions” so clearly relates to EI. We may call it “navigating emotions,” with Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Network, but it really is the same. There are so many instances when the information gleaned from anger, frustration, sadness, happiness,  and joy can bring power, energy, and clarity to a president’s message. The job of the President of the United States is to be able to transform those emotions into messages that enlist, energize, and empower the citizens. Additionally, “defining goals” relates to “managing emotions” in that a president needs to use the data from their emotions and create a clear message that communicates shared purpose.

Lastly, being able to relax is an important quality for a president, as with any leader. President of the United States has almost an unequaled amount of stress in their lives. Taking the time for reflection, time with family, a sport, or perhaps a hobby is an extremely important part of the lives of any leader.

 I believe Doris Kearns Goodwin’s list is almost complete. I would definitely add empathy as another quality. She alluded to it many times in the program, but did not name it. It is clearly evident that emotional intelligence competencies are at the core of any leader, not just President of the United States.

Recently I was feeling like the strong link in a long chain composed of some weak links on either side of mine.  I realized that some of the stress I was feeling was a result of my largely unconcious efforts to be ever stronger in order to compensate for the weaker links that I was chained to ….

Once this metaphor came to mind, I realized that of course strengthening  me, my own link, would not really strengthen the total chain, in fact in might even have the opposite effect, creating  more tension and pressure on the weaker links.

Is there a way I can use my expertise and relationships to pass strength and skills along the chain in order to strengthen the other links? This seems a more effective, in fact the only effective way for me to influence and strengthen the myraid chains of which I choose to be a part. 

How do we as leaders, and links, mobilize and share our expertise in order to create strength and capacity in the links that we depend on and that depend on us? This metaphor most accurately describes the groups I am a part of. I am a necessary, indespensible, valuable link, depended on by and dependent on many other strong, capable links.  I feel both support and responsibility when I recognize the inherent and critical interdependence of  relationships in my work, my life and in our very existence on our precious planet. 

Lately, I have been thinking about values and EI so I started to re-read some of the earlier writing on the theory. These abilities are to be used to promote emotional growth and development. People high on EI are not masters of the universe, nor do they rise to the top of the corporate heap. They do, however, have stronger and more positive relationships, they communicate more clearly, and they care.

“Which is more of threat to your health: Al Qaeda or the Department of Homeland Security?”  was the provocative lead in question to a recent article entitled Living in Fear and Paying a High Cost in Heart Risk.  The article states that the answer is not as clear cut as you might think.  A study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, which tracked the health of a representative study of more than 2,700 Americans before 9/11, began monitoring people’s fears of terrorism for several years post the attack and found that the most fearful people were found to be 3 to 5 times more likely to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments.  For specifics about the study read the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15tier.html?pagewanted=all

During this period Homeland Security devised a color coded scale to alert the nation to the level of threat present.  If you recall the numerous news conferences the Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security held and the lead story to the nightly news, which all gave special attention to the elevated level of threat. I remember sitting in an airport, late one night waiting for a flight, when a cold metallic voice over the loudspeaker broke into my day’s reflections informing me that the level of threat was elevated to orange and to not leave my bags unattended! My amygdala quickly focused my vision, as I scanned all the other faces in the waiting area and it alerted me to where all the exits where. It was scary. Of note is that the level has never dropped below yellow, third of the five levels, since the inception of the scale. The implications and results of the study indicate that living in constant fear has negative psychological, physical, and emotional consequence to one’s health.

As I was working my way through the article I kept reflecting on how important the work we do with leaders on managing and navigating emotions. One tool we teach is the Reaction Cycle (Our body’s way or reacting to a perceived threat), which shows how you can intervene at three critical phases of the cycle: Preparation, Interpretation, and Escalation, to bring our thoughts, emotions and bodies back to equilibrium.  I also wondered about leaders who use fear as part of their leadership style and the consequences it has on performance but also on the long term health of the people they manage and lead, as well as on their own health.

Alan Deutschman in his book, Chang or Die points out the misconceptions about change; if you give people the facts, create enough fear and then add force that change happens.  In fact the 3 F’s are the saboteurs of change. Joseph LeDoux says, “Emotions are a critical source of information for learning.” EQ tells us that fear is a legitimate and critical emotion; without fear there probably wouldn’t be a human species. However, to remain in fear is unproductive for health and performance and to bring about constructive change.  We need fear to alert us to the dangers of global warming and other serious threats to our well-being but we need to learn to move out of fear and into hope to assist us in creating a sustained effort to overcome our threats.

I have had a couple of times lately that tears have welled up in my eyes. As I watch and listen to the events surrounding the presidential campaign, I am really amazed about those citizens who are attempting to become President of the United States. Diversity is such an important value of mine and I am just in awe that we as a nation have made some changes. I would not be foolhearty enough to think that we have made major strides in becoming inclusive, but I am hopeful.

My husband has been thinking that I have become obsessed with the presidential compaign, because I am always listening to the debates, watching CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. How can I miss out on this historical campaign? I also find myself listening for clarity, sincerity, authenticity, optimism, and hope in the messages of those candidates. I am fascinated!

We have always talked about the United States as a country of immigrants. I am hopeful that this campaign will just be a start of having those in power reflect who we really are. Dr. King would be pleased. Yes..times they are a changing.

The feature article in the Magazine section of the New Times, January 13, 2008 is entitled “The Moral Instinct”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin and it is an essential read for everyone but in particular for practitioners of EQ and leaders. It highlights many fascinating ideas, concepts, and research; here are few of the headings:

• Universal Morality
• Reasoning and Rationalizing
• Moralization Switch
• The Genealogy of Morals

This quote from psychologist Jonathan Haidt, from the section, Reasoning and Rationalizing, describes the gap between people’s convictions and their justifications: “People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up be an unconscious emotion, and then work backwards to a plausible justification.”

I also found interesting a study that asked people to make a moral decision. It involved a train coming down the track and if not diverted it will kill five people working on the track. In this scenario you can pull a switch and the train will divert to another track and one person will be killed instead of five. In the other scenario the same decision must be made, save five people at the expense of one, however in order to divert the train you must push a fat man standing beside you on to the tracks. The two dilemmas are morally equivalent. But most people don’t see it that way. In the first scenario most people make the decision to pull the switch but they will not throw the fat man on to the tracks.

When they looked at people’s brains in an FMRI there where clear distinctions which regions of the brain showed activity depending on the dilemma scenario. In the first scenario, pull a switch, the region for rational calculation showed increased activity. In the second dilemma, push the fat man, the regions of the brain implicated in emotions showed more activity. It appears that the more intimate one is to a situation; the emotions that are evoked have a stronger influence on our moral decisions. This led me to wonder about these implications for corporate and government leaders. If leaders are insulated and isolated from the people who will bear the consequences of their decisions they may be less likely to have emotions as a source of data to assist them in making decisions. It also made me wonder if this factor plays a role in corporate scandals such as Enron, where executives make decisions that ruin the lives of employee investors for their personal gain and does it make it easier for a president to send men and women to die in a war if they are insulated form the brutal aspects of their decisions.

I thought of Abraham Lincoln who struggled emotionally with the consequences of his decisions to have men die for the rights of others to live free as he made repeated visits t the battle field. I wonder, was it easier for President Truman to make the decision to drop the atomic bombs because Japan was thousands of miles away. Do we not march in the streets to protest the killings of innocents in Darfur and Iraq because we can rationalize that it is not us who are pulling the switch? Maybe it should be a requirement that all leaders and presidents send 50 % of their time with the stakeholders who have invested their trust and their lives in them. Maybe we all need to open hearts wider and listen to the cries of innocents who are dying. Maybe if we can bring EQ into our lives, we will do the right thing.

I found this article intriguing, both in the framing and the advice. The setup is that while we talk a lot about things being different in our organizations (and lives), most of us won’t actually do much about it. Is that ok with you?

… the truth is we will all still be at the same spot next year, fussing about the way we are organizing, prioritizing and delegating.

But what would happen if we were determined to make a real change in the way we lead our organizations this year? Perhaps we should ask ourselves the more compelling question…what will happen in our organization this year if nothing changes in the way we lead?

In considering my own challenges as a leader, there are some results I want this year - this question is leading me to wonder: Am I really willing to work for it? I’m pretty comfortable with the way things are right now - it’s not all it could be, but is pretty great. Hard work to change - worth it? Will think!

Sometimes I wish I could just “press the button” and have change done.

But change takes persistent effort. I don’t mind working HARD - its keeping it in focus day after day that’s so difficult.

The article then provides seven ideas of things to do differently - hard things like building better relationships, holding onto vision, and being authentic. These take a lot of courage and risk - I’d have to be a bit less comfortable, and I’d have to be willing to risk making others uncomfortable. Takes a lot of emotional intelligence to manage that. Where’s an good EQ consultant when you need one??

Like so many of my clients, I know this - but doing it is harder than knowing it.

Hm. So what’s it gonna be? Comfort or learning? I’ll let you know next year.

Check out the article - Gregg Thompson — WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING CHANGES? (The Point, Jan 08)