Last weekend we had our first Six Seconds EQ Network meeting in Italy. Max Ghini (Director of the 6S-Italia office) and I presented - here’s Max (and look at the lovely room in the basement of an old old building, just off the main square of Bologna):

And me… I talked about using emotions and emotional intelligence to create change - with some personal stories of starting Six Seconds and our commitment to change starting with ourselves. I also shared stories of paradoxical feelings about my father, and finally the legacy of a Hawaiian woman committed to rebuilding a community space.

Here’s more of the wonderful Italia team, from left: Lorenzo, Dani, Federica, Veru:

Max introduced the Corporate Social Responsibility campaign and we all discussed the vision of partnering with business to create a context for thriving. It seemed simple and natural that we could help businesses meet their essential goals by bringing EQ to the communities where they operate:

Then teams started working on how to bring EQ to all the children and adults of Italy and beyond:

Thank you to the 50+ who joined the meeting! I look forward to the next one - which will be the Choose to Change conference in San Jose, CA, Oct 4-5 ‘08.

Did you see the little blurb in the Sunday NY Times business section? MBA students from the top 15 schools were asked to select the 3 topo factors they wanted in a job. #1 was ‘challenging job responsibilities”. The second was money - not the first as many think. Work-life balance followed and then came ‘potential to make a contribution to society’. These are MBA students, not teachers or social workers, and although money is important to them they want to contribute.

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.

A new study released in Applied Psychology found that people with a highly rational thinking style actually became more biased as the stakes went up.  The authors suggest that in an escalating situation, the highly analytical thinkers were less able to tune into the dissonance that would cause them to challenge their own assumptions.

In other words:  They ignored the feeling that they were on the wrong track.

The common view is that we need to be rational to make optimal decisions, but it’s just not true.  The last century has been driven by this paradigm and the results are clear - while we have incredible technical excellence, we are failing as a species.  My contention: “Analytical = Better” is one of the most pervasive and destructive myths of our era.

If wisdom is to be found, it is not within the paralyzing prison of logic alone.

Source: Kin Fai Ellick Wong, Jessica Yuk Yee Kwong, Carmen K. Ng (2008) “When Thinking Rationally Increases Biases: The Role of Rational Thinking Style in Escalation of Commitment,” Applied Psychology 57 (2) , 246–271  (Article Abstract)

Recently I read a critique of the “SEAL” initiative in the UK, a government mandate to ensure all students systematically and consistently learn about emotions. The critique is poorly grounded, sensational, and self-promotional — but there was one point that’s been hovering. It said, in essence: This approach has never been fully tested so it is unreasonable to experiment on a generation.

On the one hand, this is eminently reasonable. We ought to look before we leap. So we do a great deal of research (both empirical and observational) and use that to define best practice. There is now a substantial body of research on SEL (see the case), but of course not enough for certainty.

On the other, we are already experimenting, so the question isn’t “experiment or not,” it is, “do our best to rationalize this experiment or bury our heads in the sand.”

The experiment underway is a tsunami of social change. As a society we’re in the midst of a chaotic, uncontrolled experiment — introducing variables from GMO foods to youth who average 60 hour of TV time to instant messaging to billions spent on marketing to children (versus 1/50th only two decades before).

In the face of these unprecedented, chaotic, and stress-inducing forces, we must find ways to balance — like surfing on tidal waves. As educators, we do not have the luxury of certainly. We need both the immediate intervention — our best efforts crafted from a blend of reason and compassion — and the carefully considered and well-evaluated response.

But we can’t wait too long. Each year we spend contemplating and debating, millions of children miss another year of opportunity… and then the experiment changes again.

Further, it occurs to me that education has always been an experimental journey.

At one point, the field of education had never tested the teaching of anyone but nobility. At another point, the use of pencils had never been tested. Or teaching of girls - and girls and boys together - and teaching of people of multiple races together… more recently, education had never tested the effect of raising a generation who used electronic typewriters. I remember the joy when my parents bought an IBM Selectric which would re-type a report from memory! And the consternation of some of my teachers when I was bringing reports without white-out-corrections (was I cheating??)

To teach at all requires a certain arrogance — based in a belief that we know what will help the next generation solve the problems they will inherit from us (that’s right - those very problems we have patently failed to solve).  Ideally we balance that arrogance with incredible compassion, not just for humanity but more for these individual people, these delightful, confusing, challenging, and unique humans. In the abstract we can research and debate — but when it comes down to the mat, there are children who need us, and they are the promise, the one chance for tomorrow, and they can not wait for us to figure it out.  So in the end, teaching is an act of hope.

On two recent occasions I have been confronted with the realities of the information and population explosion. Sharing a meal with a well informed professional person, we have mentioned leaders in our respective fields of work, only to be faced with completely blank looks. These are social trials …. either trying to hide our shock at another’s ignorance, or even worse pretending to know who is being discussed. It can be really quite embarrassing if we don’t openly understand and acknowledge the reality of the situation. It has always happened to a certain extent, but it is getting increasingly difficult to keep up. And there is little authenticity in pretending.

In the revised Shift Happens film (below) it quotes that the amount of technical information is doubling every 2 years, there were 3000 books published today, 2.7 billion searches performed on google this month…

Which is why computers are no longer optional… and why social network sites have literally exploded. We need to manage all the connections and all the information. The truth is really quite profound. We cannot manage without people networks, where we have connections with lots and lots of other people. And with those connections can come a measure of confidence. Perhaps we don’t need to be trying desperately to absorb so much information, perhaps it is OK to let others know lots of other things we don’t . . . but are only a click or a call away?

We need people, and we need to build trusting relationships with those people in order to collaborate.

I think that that this is a truly wonderful thing.

There is certainly no doubt in my mind that self-organisation has already happened with regard social networking sites. The challenge is to design systems evolutionary enough and quickly enough to ensure their relevance . . . next week.

Continuing on David’s theme about happiness… I completely agree that we’ve got “happiness-seeking-run-amok” and that sadness is good too! Does real “happiness” mean the absence of sorrow? I suspect it means “being more alive.” It certainly doesn’t seem to come from ease.

I haven’t read it, but thought the premise of this book sounds right on! The Economics of Happiness. Have you read it? Please comment!

Why, in spite of increasing economic prosperity over the past 50 years, are many conditions of well-being in decline and rates of happiness largely unchanged since the 1950s?

It seems we have so much to be happy about - but not the happiness! I remember as a teen visiting my sis and bro-in-law who were teaching in rural Kenya. We walked around the village where they worked and people had next to nothing, but seemed so happy. At the time I though it a strange paradox then, but moved quickly onto the pressing matters of growing up.

Now I see there’s some essential secret we’ve missed, and I wonder if we can get it back?

A really excellent article in The Walrus entitled Repress Yourself published originally in 2006 explores in some detail the social boundaries and attitudes towards ‘expressing everything’ and a more British ’stiff upper lip’ or as they describe it, ‘blessed silence’. With references to enthrawling tv drama where actors are scripted and characters at times magnetic, versus the raw emotionality of reality tv, it becomes a convincing argument for a fair amount of restraint. The article states, ‘We increasingly used self-expression as a justification for all sorts of bad behaviour on the grounds that to do anything other than what our natural feeling dictates is hypocritical.’

But do we?

Emotional intelligence has really built upon the belief that we should work to manage the expression of feeling, ensuring that it is done appropriately and sensitively, and even at times not at all. Additionally ‘delaying gratification’ is also seen as an emotional intelligence competence… is this not another word for ‘denial’ or ‘discipline’?

The conversations and controversies seem, as always, focused on the extremes. The times when people get it a little wrong or find circumstances overwhelming used as evidence. The ideal reality must be that somewhere between repression and overly expressed emotions must lie the Happy Medium, which hopefully includes some empathy and compassion for the times our fellow humans get it all a bit wrong?

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.

Challenging questions for Hilary Clinton and our society in an emotional intelligence meets politics moment — a Newsweek article (Hillary Tears Up: A Muskie moment, or a helpful glimpse of ‘the real Hillary’?) asks if Hilary’s display of emotion will be seen as a sign of weakness, or of honesty?  And in any case, the emotion trumps the facts:

No one will remember the hour of detailed policy talk that preceded Clinton’s emotional moment

Will Americans confirm that:

anyone who needed to carry Kleenex in her purse was unfit for the highest office in the land

or will the conclusion come that emotion helps

a candidate who is seen as aloof and too tightly scripted appear more vulnerable, more human and more appealing

What do we really want in a leader?  This brings up so many questions about trust and emotion — do we trust people who hide their emotions or show them?  Do we prefer “false strength” to authenticity?  I suspect that genuineness+moderate strength goes further than appearance of big strength.
I also enjoyed reading comments on this video on youtube - which raise the question: Was it real anyway?

What do you think? Fake or real tears? Weak or strong?