Sunday, May 29, 2005

Hays Group Analysis

Hay Group's Eighth Annual Analysis of Most Admired Companies in FORTUNE Magazine Ranking

Discipline, Organization, Patience, and Talent Are Key Factors for World’s Most Innovative Companies

PHILADELPHIA, February 28, 2005: In partnership with FORTUNE, Hay Group, a global organizational and human resources consulting firm, conducted its eighth annual analysis of the Most Admired Companies lists for the magazine's March 7 issue. In conjunction with this ranking, Hay Group surveyed executives to identify the leading traits of the world's most innovative companies.

For the study, Hay Group sought to understand how organizations develop, implement, and sustain innovation.

Top Innovative CompaniesFederal Express and Procter & Gamble tied for the number one spot in the innovation study. Other companies that ranked high were Alcoa, Texas Instruments, and Walgreen's.

"Innovative companies tend to define standards for their industry sector: FedEx and overnight delivery; Procter & Gamble with product design; Alcoa aluminum in its use and application of materials," said Hay Group’s Vice President Mel Stark.

Hay Group surveyed executives at 160 companies in the fourth quarter of 2004. The research identified two groups: innovation leaders and peer group companies. Innovation leaders were the two companies in each industry that had the highest score for innovation. All the other companies in the study were included in the peer group.

Hay Group identified more than 10 factors of the world’s leading innovative companies, including: vision, tone, talented employees, disciplined managers, a nurturing environment, patience, a tolerance for failure, investment in research and development, as well as the right structures, processes, and systems for innovation to flourish.

“Innovative companies are distinguished from their peers by having the right people in the right environment with the right leadership,” said Stark. “Innovation is not spontaneous--these companies plan for and manage their organizations to be innovative.”

Respondents from the innovation leaders report that managers are given the decision-making latitude they need (91 percent, versus 82 percent of peer companies) and that their companies are patient with ideas that don’t generate immediate results (75 percent, versus 62 percent of peer companies).
Innovation leaders also report that they invest greater resources in research and development than their competitors (65 percent, versus 44 percent of peer companies).

ExecutivesAccording to the study, executives at the innovative companies surround themselves with people who are not afraid to challenge them on their thinking.
“Innovation starts at the top with the CEO and senior executives setting the tone and vision for the company,” added Stark.
Innovative EmployeesThe study found a number of common characteristics of the employees at the most innovative companies. They were high achievers, intellectually curious, and risk takers. They also evidenced a high tolerance for ambiguity in their jobs and a high level of empathy and sensitivity to others.
Hay Group’s proprietary data and experience working with a number of the innovation leaders correlate highly with the FORTUNE research and the competencies and qualities found in the Most Admired Companies.

Return on Investment
Hay Group’s research showed that innovative companies are patient with ideas that don’t generate immediate returns and don’t withdraw funding or support too quickly. However, these same companies are not afraid to admit mistakes and cut their losses on ideas that fail.
"You can generate innovation within a company if you are willing to create the organizational conditions that allow it to flourish,” said Stark. “It starts with screening for the right people that will fit into the corporate culture, hiring and retaining them, and developing systems to manage them."

Hay Group partners with FORTUNE magazine annually to identify and rank the World’s and America’s Most Admired Companies and uncover the business practices that make these companies both highly regarded and successful. Past research studies have focused on a wide range of topics including attraction and retention of talent, leadership development, performance measurement, corporate culture, strategy implementation, execution, and responses to economic uncertainty.

To identify and rank the America’s Most Admired, Hay Group asked the top managers at 582 companies (the largest by revenues in each of 65 sectors) to judge their competition. In all, 10,000 executives, directors, and securities analysts rated the companies in their industries on eight attributes.: innovation, employee talent, financial soundness, quality of management, use of corporate assets, social responsibility, long-term investment, and quality of products/services.

The World’s Most Admired were measured on the same eight attributes plus effectiveness in doing business globally.

For more on Hay Group’s research and analysis of the Most Admired Companies, visit

FAQ's Competency based Approach

What is a Competency?

A competency is defined as a behavior or set of behaviors that describes excellent performance in a particular work context (e.g., job, role or group of jobs, function, or whole organization). These characteristics are applied more and more by organizations because they provide significant help with key problems such as:

clarifying workforce standards and expectations

aligning individuals, teams, and managers with the organization's business strategies

creating empowerment, accountability, and alignment of coach, team member, and employer in performance development

developing equitable, focused appraisal and compensation decisions

What is a competency model?

A competency model is a set of success factors, often called competencies that include the key behaviors required for excellent performance in a particular role. Excellent performers on-the-job demonstrate these behaviors much more consistently than average or poor performers. These characteristics generally follow the 80-20 rule in that they include the key behaviors that primarily drive excellent performance.
They are generally presented with a definition and key behavioral indicators. (See example below): Competency Title: Customer Service OrientationDefinition: Responds to customer's needs in a manner that provides added value and generates significant customer satisfaction.
Behavioral Indicator:s
Demonstrates a deep understanding of internal and external customers and their needs
Mobilizes the appropriate resources to respond to customer's needs
Takes personal responsibility for customer satisfaction (e.g., focuses value-added interactions)
Builds credibility and trust with the customer through open and direct communication (e.g., uses effective listening skills, provides timely. feedback, etc.)
Ensures that customers believe their issues and concerns are given highest priority
In contrast, competencies do not include "baseline" skills and knowledge (i.e., commonly expected performance characteristics such as finishing assigned work, answering the telephone, writing follow-up letters, etc.), job tasks, or unusual or idiosyncratic behaviors that may contribute to a single individual's success.

How do competencies differ from skills and knowledge?

Competencies only include behaviors that demonstrate excellent performance. Therefore, they do not include knowledge, but do include "applied" knowledge or the behavioral application of knowledge that produces success. In addition, competencies do include skills, but only the manifestation of skills that produce success. Finally, competencies are not work motives, but do include observable behaviors related to motives. (See figure below for an illustration of these key points.)

Why is a competency model important?

The model is important because it provides a "road map" for the range of behaviors that produce excellent performance. It helps:
Companies "raise the bar" of performance expectations;
Teams and individuals align their behavior with key organizational strategies; and
Each employee understands how to achieve expected performance standards
How are competency models developed?

Competency models are developed through a process of clarifying the business strategy and determining how the models would be used (e.g., hiring and selection, assessment, performance management, training and development, and career development). Then, data is gathered in structured interviews.
Next, data is analyzed and used to develop strawman models of success criteria. Then validation surveys are administered and models refined based on feedback. Finally, models are finalized and translated into appropriate, end-user tools and applications.

What is meant by "Integrated Human Resource Practices"?
Organizations are using competencies in virtually every human resource domain. They provide criteria that can be applied to each of the human resource practices shown below:Integrated Human Resource PracticesCompetencies are used as the "key criteria" for implementing each application. In other words, competencies are framed into a specific tool and accompanied by guidelines defining how managers and employees use the tool to produce results in each of the above areas.

How can performance management work in a competency-based system?
Ideally performance management is positioned as a process comprised of steps that include planning, managing, evaluating and rewarding performance. Often, the competencies used in performance management are either a subset of the total competency model, or the definition. In addition, the performance appraisal process includes goals, expected results, and competencies. It is an ongoing process that aligns and integrates the objectives of the organization, business units, teams and individuals. Competencies specify precisely how individuals can align their activities to the key strategies of the organization.

What are the benefits of implementing a competency-based approach to developing professionals?
For The Company, competency-based practices:

Reinforce corporate strategy, culture, and vision.

Establish expectations for performance excellence, resulting in a systematic approach to professional development, improved job satisfaction, and better employee retention.

Increase the effectiveness of training and professional development programs by linking them to the success criteria (i.e., behavioral standards of excellence).

Provide data on development needs that emerge from group and/or organizational composites that are an outcome of multi-rater assessments.

Provide a common framework and language for discussing how to implement and communicate key strategies.

Provide a common understanding of the scope and requirements of a specific role

Provide common, organization-wide standards for career levels that enable employees to move across business boundaries.

For Managers, competency-based practices:

Identify performance criteria to improve the accuracy and ease of the hiring and selection process.

Provide more objective performance standards.

Clarify standards of excellence for easier communication of performance expectations to direct reports.

Provide a clear foundation for dialogue to occur between the manager and employee about performance, development, and career-related issues.

For Employees, competency-based practices:

Identify the success criteria (i.e., behavioral standards of performance excellence) required to be successful in their role.

Provide a more specific and objective assessment of their strengths and specify targeted areas for professional development.

Provide development tools and methods for enhancing their skills.

Provide the basis for a more objective dialogue with their manager or team about performance, development, and career related issues.

What is the business impact of competency-based systems?
Often leadership programs or performance development interventions are seen as important, but focused on "soft skills" that may not affect business results. One of the most important developments in human resources is the clarification of the "business value" of key programs. Some of the measurable benefits of competency-based performance development are listed below. These kinds of impacts improve talent levels, save money, and improve business performance.

Specific Improvements Related to Using Competency-Based Systems
5-10% in rate of hiring successful candidates.
15-20% in retention of desired employees.
15-25% in morale as measured in employee surveys.
20% in goal completion by individuals and teams.

How do you gain management commitment to support a competency-based system?
On-going management sponsorship is one of the most important factors predicting success in competency-based practices. Some of the most important methods for ensuring support include: early involvement in the profile-building process, maintaining focus on the business payoff (i.e., cost/rework savings, improved efficiencies, better alignment between individual and team behavior and strategies), involving managers in early pilots (e.g., 360° assessments), and enlisting managers to support the integration of competencies into development plans and performance management tools.

How can competencies be used in a coaching/self-assessment process and tool?
Competencies can be formatted into a coaching/self-assessment tool that allows employees and/or managers to rate competencies for performance level and degree of importance, and to provide evidence (e.g., noting specific accomplishments or evidence of potential performance problems) to support their ratings.

What are the advantages of using this coaching and self-assessment tool?The primary advantage of this assessment tool is that it can be used in the course of day-to-day activities.
Managers may apply it to assess overall performance (e.g., as an adjunct to an appraisal), conduct a dialogue comparing ratings with a direct report, or to focus on one or more competencies in a short coaching session. Individuals can apply it as an observation checklist to evaluate role models, as a quick method for personal assessment, or as an ad hoc multi-rater tool (by soliciting inputs from managers, colleagues, etc.).

Teams can use it as a vehicle to introduce the concept of competency standards and to determine total team strengths and vulnerabilities.

What are the benefits of the coaching and self-assessment tool?
The most important benefits of the assessment tool are that it:
Helps the manager focus coaching and development discussions, perform them faster and more objectively, and involve their direct reports in more self-directed assessment and development;
Helps individuals take realistic responsibility for their own evaluation and development; and
Helps teams maintain their focus on critical success factors, and target and confront overall team vulnerabilities.

When can and should a 360° assessment process and tool be used?
This process can be used by anyone in an organization for whom there is an appropriate competency profile. However, a 360° assessment process works best when used selectively. The tool can provide very accurate evaluation data when relatively unbiased information is collected from a range of people who observe an individual's work. This form of assessment requires data processing, incurs costs, and requires time from several people to complete ratings.
Therefore, it should be used in specific situations, such as:

A major career transition or job change;
A reorganization or major realignment of a team or organization (to target new performance criteria);
Developing objective evidence about and feedback for a problem employee;
Developing a plan for leveraging the talents of excellent employees (e.g., high potential groups); and
Developing plans for high-impact groups (e.g., managers, executives, boards of directors)
360° assessment works as well for teams as it does for individuals. Composite reports for whole teams and business units are excellent vehicles for evaluating group vulnerabilities, strengths and for developing total team competence.

What are the benefits of a 360° assessment?
The 360° assessment process provides more accurate, objective, and extensive feedback than other forms of competency evaluation. It is an excellent method for gaining relatively unbiased insights into development targets and for clarifying differences of perception between an individual and their managers, colleagues, direct reports, and customers. In addition, individuals can access development advice related to competency gaps and create development plans at their own unique homepage. Individuals can share their data, reports, and development plans online with their manager.

Who usually participates in the 360° assessment process?
The 360° assessment process is most effective when an individual receives feedback from a diverse group of individuals (6-10) who directly observe an individual's work (e.g., manager, dotted-line manager, internal and/or external customers, colleagues, and direct reports as well as themselves). While a larger and more diverse data pool provides more valid assessment, the desire for rich data needs to be balanced against the time and resources required to complete the tool.

How does an individual receive their feedback report?
Usually, individuals receive their feedback report online at their homepage and bring their report to a specific debriefing session facilitated by a person certified in the process of debriefing 360° assessment feedback. During the debriefing session, an individual evaluates the results, and creates an action plan that helps them set goals for leveraging their strengths and developing in areas where they need improvement. They can also go back to their homepage at the Voyagerä site and explore different options for development. 360° assessment feedback is most effective when it is:
Debriefed in a safe context (e.g., separate from performance appraisal);
Debriefed by trained facilitators;
Linked to an important human resource process or goal (e.g., a performance management process, leadership training, etc.);
Translated into specific development goals and actions that are tracked over time; and
Dialogued with managers and the individual's team in follow-up discussions.

What are the potential pitfalls of 360° assessments?
360° assessments are a powerful tool, but can have several unintended negative effects. For instance, sometimes individuals try to manipulate the data by selecting participants whom they think will provide them with the most positive feedback. In other instances, individuals feel betrayed if leaders try to use numerical 360° assessment data in appraisals or for de-selection decisions (Note that individual numerical data is provided only to the assessed individual). In addition, 360° assessment requires time and resources to implement and can be used to avoid rather than promote dialogue. Finally, 360° assessment reports have all the advantages and disadvantages of numerical data (i.e., they provide a relative assessment about WHAT might be vulnerable, but do not offer information about WHY there is a problem).

How balanced are 360° assessment tools as they relate to bias, gender, and nationality?
While 360° assessment feedback does not eliminate all forms of rater bias, well-constructed competency profiles focus on successful behaviors of excellent performers written in neutral language and, therefore, tends to "level the playing field" and eliminate significant bias.

How are 360° assessments related to performance management?
360° assessments are an excellent early application of competencies since it focuses on required standards of excellence and provides positive, helpful input. After performing 360° assessments, many organizations imbed competencies in the coaching and performance appraisal process as a logical next step. This sequencing of applications helps individuals become aware of and committed to the new standards prior to being evaluated against them.

How does performance management work in a competency-based system?
Ideally performance management is positioned as a process comprised of steps that include planning, managing, evaluating and rewarding performance. It is an ongoing process which aligns and integrates the objectives of the organization, business units, teams and individuals of which competencies are the engine.

Can competencies be tied to compensation (e.g., base pay or incentive pay)? Most often competencies are not tied to compensation. However, many organizations are beginning to include competencies in both the appraisal process and pay decisions. Approaches range from informal influence to specific, calculated approaches.

How does such a competency-based system influence pay?
More often than not, competencies are used with other factors to narrow the range of appropriate pay. Most companies reward both competencies and results, though the mechanisms for doing this vary from organization to organization depending on their philosophy and practices around rewards and recognition.

Do companies implement 360° performance appraisals?
Some organizations commit themselves to 360° performance appraisals. This should be done separately from the 360° assessment process. In other words, 360° assessments should not be used as part of the appraisal process. 360° appraisals are an excellent method for improving accountability and gaining better insights into strengths and vulnerabilities from the range of people who observe other's work most directly. However, these systems require levels of commitment, honesty, and effort that are often difficult to sustain over time.
What is the difference between a 360° appraisal and a 360° development plan? The 360° appraisal focuses on a multi-source data gathering process for performance evaluation. 360° assessments limit the purpose of data gathering to development and usually makes the numerical data and comments, if solicited, the property of the feedback receiver only.

What's the best method for interviewing?
The best available method for overcoming potential vulnerabilities in the interview process and for identifying specific behavioral criteria for excellence is a behaviorally-anchored evaluation. In order to perform this type of interview, a model that describes objective criteria of success for a specific job role (e.g., a success template) is used. In addition, an excellent hiring intervention should focus on:
Traits and leadership skills that are most difficult to develop on the job through training and development.
Those skills that are critical for top performance in a specific job category.
This method of hiring and selection helps interviewers perform the most significant part of the screening by using an objective scoring procedure.

What are best practices for individual development?
It is important for individuals to view their own development as a continuous improvement process. Most personal change initiatives fail because of a lack of follow through. To succeed, individuals should:
Keep focused on targeted improvement areas
Clarify what excellent performance looks like in action (e.g., discuss excellent performance with manager/coach/team members; identify models to emulate)
Arrange for frequent behavior practice
Solicit frequent feedback
Revise and update improvement strategies
Track progress by reviewing objective evidence for improvement/continuing development needs

Signsof High and Low E.Q.

From: Oscar Murphy Int'l <> Date: Fri May 20, 2005 12:31 pm
Subject: Emotional Intelligence - Signs of High and Low EQ !!

Signs of High and Low EQ

Listed below are general characteristics of people with high and low EQ, as I define it. Obviously, these are generalizations, but are helpful as guidelines. Please note that these lists include general signs of high and low self-esteem, as well as other variables which have not in fact been specifically correlated to emotional intelligence as defined by Mayer and Salovey. Future work will attempt to more clearly differentiate between self-esteem, emotional intelligence and my definition of EQ.

Signs of High EQ

A person with High EQ:

Expresses his feelings clearly and directly with three word sentences beginning with "I feel..."
Does not diguise thoughts as feelings by the use of "I feel like...." and "I feel that...." sentences.

Is not afraid to express her feelings.

Is not dominated by negative emotions such as: Fear, Worry, Guilt, Shame, Embarrassment, Obligation, Disappointment, Hopelessness, Powerlessness, Dependency, Victimization, Discouragement

Is able to read non-verbal communication.

Lets his feelings lead him to healthy choices and happiness.

Balances feelings with reason, logic, and reality.

Acts out of desire, not because of duty, guilt, force or obligation.

Is independent, self-reliant and morally autonomous.

Is intrinsically motivated.

Is not motivated by power, wealth, status, fame, or approval.

Is emotionally resilient.

Tends to feel optimistic, but is also realistic, and can feel pessimistic at times.

Does not internalize failure.

Is interested in other people's feelings.
Is comfortable talking about feelings.

Is not immobilized by fear or worry.

Is able to identify multiple concurrent feelings.

A person with Low EQ:

Doesn't take responsibilities for his feelings; but blames you or others for them.

Can't put together three word sentences starting with "I feel..."

Can't tell you why she feels the way she does, or can't do it without blaming someone else.

Attacks, blames, commands, criticizes, interrupts, invalidates, lectures, advises and judges you and others.

Tries to analyze you, for example when you express your feelings.

Often begins sentences with "I think you..."

Sends "you messages" disgused as "I feel messages" For example, "I feel like you ...."

Lays guilt trips on you.

Withholds information about or lies about his feelings. (Emotional dishonesty)

Exaggerates or minimizes her feelings.

Lets things build up, then they blow up, or react strongly to something relatively minor.

Lacks integrity and a sense of conscience.

Carries grudges; is unforgiving.

Doesnt tell you where you really stand with her.

Is uncomfortable to be around.

Acts out his feelings, rather than talking them out.

Plays games; is indirect or evasive.

Is insensitive to your feelings.

Has no empathy, no compassion.

Is rigid, inflexible; needs rules and structure to feel secure.

Is not emotionally available; offers little chance of emotional intimacy.

Does not consider your feelings before acting.

Does not consider their own future feelings before acting.

Is insecure and defensive and finds it hard to admit mistakes, express remorse, or apologize sincerely.

Avoids responsibility by saying things like: "What was I supposed to do? I had no choice!

Holds many distorted and self-destructive beliefs which cause persistent negative emotions
May be overly pessimistic; may invalidate others' joy.

Or may be overly optimistic, to the point of being unrealistic and invalidating of others' legitimate fears.

Frequently feels inadequate, disappointed, resentful, bitter or victimized.

Locks himself into courses of action against common sense, or jumps ship at the first sight of trouble.

Avoids connections with people and seeks substitute relationships with everything from pets and plants to imaginary beings.

Rigidly clings to his beliefs because he is too insecure to be open to new facts.

Can tell you the details of an event, and what they think about it, but can't tell you how she feels about it.

Uses his intellect to judge and criticize others without realizing he is feeling superior, judgmental, critical, and without awareness of how his actions impact others' feelings.

Is a poor listener. Interrupts. Invalidates. Misses the emotions being communicated. Focusses on "facts" rather than feelings.

By Steve Hein
Posted By

Lucy Doss Manager - Training Coordination (Singapore)Oscar Murphy Life Strategists P Ltd 772, 10th Cross, 10th Main, Indira Nagar 2nd Stage Bangalore - 560038, India Phone: 91 80 5116 1534 / 35 Email: WEB:

Elements of Emotional Intelligence

From: Oscar Murphy Int'l <> Date: Wed May 18, 2005 1:34 pm

Subject: Elements of Emotional Intelligence !!

Emotional Intelligence

What is Emotional Intelligence?
The ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotion;
The ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought
The ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge
The ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth.

Elements of Emotional Intelligence

Personal Competencies:

1. SELF-AWARENESS Knowing one's internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions.

2. MANAGING EMOTIONS Managing one's internal states, impulses, and resources.

3. MOTIVATION Emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals.

Social Competencies:

4. EMPATHY Awareness of others' feelings, needs, and concerns.

5. SOCIAL SKILLS Adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others.


High self-awareness refers to having an accurate understanding of how you behave, how other people perceive you, recognizing how you respond to others, being sensitive to your attitudes, feelings, emotions, intents and general communication style at any given moment and being able to accurately disclose this awareness to others.


Know when you are thinking negatively
Know when your self-talk is helpful
Know when you are becoming angry
Know how you are interpreting events
Know what senses you are currently using
Know how to communicate accurately what you experience
Know the moments your mood shifts
Know when you are becoming defensive
Know the impact your behavior has on others


Do you recognize your feelings and emotions as they happen?
Are you aware of how others perceive you?
How do you act when you are defensive?
Are you aware of how you speak to yourself?


The capacity to soothe oneself, to shake off rampant anxiety, gloom, despair, or irritability. The ability to be able to keep an emotional perspective.


Able to identify shifts in physiological arousal
Be able to relax in pressure situations
Act productively in anxiety-arousing situations
Calm oneself quickly when angry
Associate different physiological cues with different emotional states
Use self-talk to affect emotional states
Communicate feelings effectively
Reflect on negative feelings without being distressed
Stay calm when you are the target of anger from others


Do you use anger productively?
Can you manage your anxiety in times of change?
Can you put yourself in a good mood?


Be able to channel emotions to achieve a goal; to postpone immediate gratification for future gratification; to be productive in low interest, low enjoyment activities; to persist in the face of frustration and generate initiative without external pressure.


Able to "gear up" at will
Able to regroup quickly after a setback
Able to complete long-term tasks in designated time frames
Able to produce high energy in the context of low-enjoyment work
Able to change and stop ineffective habits
Able to develop new and productive patterns of behavior
Able to follow through words with actions


Are you persistent?
Do setbacks set you back?
Can you psyche yourself up?


The ability to exchange information on a meaningful level. Adept in skills necessary for organizing groups and building teams, negotiating solutions, mediating conflict among others, building consensus, and making personal connections.


Work out conflicts
Build consensus
Mediate conflict between others
Exhibit effective interpersonal communication skills
Articulate the thoughts of a group
Able to influence others, directly or indirectly
Build trust
Build support teams
Make others feel good
Sought out by others for advice and support
Is it easy for you to resolve conflict?
How well do you give criticism?
Are you a good listener?
Do you frequently praise people?


Being aware of other people's feelings and emotions; being able to listen to their feelings; being able to help others deal with their feelings and emotions in productive ways and assist them in increasing their awareness about their own impact on others.


Able to accurately reflect back to others the feelings they are experiencing
Stay calm in the presence of others' distressful emotions
Recognize when others are distressed
Able to help others manage their emotions
Be perceived by others as being empathic
Able to engage in intimate conversations with others
Able to manage group emotions
Detect incongruence between others' emotions and their behavior


Are you skillful in managing the emotions of others?
How do you know when your boss is angry, sad, anxious?
Can you manage an angry group?
Are you comfortable with your feelings?
Emotionally Intelligent Organizations
The emotionally intelligent work group or organization has a culture that exhibits:
Organizational Self-Awareness of its internal and external needs;
Management of Organizational Emotions through leadership, celebration and environment;
Organizational Motivation through meaningful work and the delivery of incentives;
Organizational Empathy by maintaining effective and meaningful relationships with consumers and employees;
Mentoring of Organizational Social Skills through training, productive personnel selection practices, and performance appraisal.

Source Unknown

Posted By

Lucy Doss Manager - Training Coordination (Singapore)Oscar Murphy Life Strategists P Ltd 772, 10th Cross, 10th Main, Indira Nagar 2nd Stage Bangalore - 560038, India Phone: 91 80 5116 1534 / 35 Email: WEB:

Emotional Intelligence-II

Date: Wed May 18, 2005 3:54 pm Subject: Understanding Emotional Intelligence-II
Here's an interview with Daniel Goleman which i had posted sometime back on this group.I am reposting the same for the benefit of new members.
Hope it proves useful.

Ajit Chouhan

Interview with Daniel Goleman

In 1999, Katherine Adams interviewed Daniel Goleman for Competency & Emotional Intelligence, talking to him about his theory of emotional intelligence, its relevance to the workplace and whether or not organisations themselves might be emotionally intelligent.
Probably more than one other single person, Daniel Goleman is responsible for bringing the concept of emotional intelligence into everyday life and, in particular, to the world of work. When Katherine Adams interviewed him, he was visiting the United Kingdom to promote the launch of his second book on emotional intelligence, in which he relates his ideas to the workplace.
Published in 1995, Emotional intelligence1 was an overnight bestseller. Goleman’s idea that there was another kind of intelligence, just as important as IQ but based on feelings rather than rationality, struck a chord around the world, and the book was translated into 25 languages.
The book began with the insight that people who had high IQ could nevertheless fail – at school, at work, and in relationships. Goleman’s idea was that success in life depends just as much on abilities like self-awareness, self-control and empathy, which are rooted in the “emotional brain”. If this view has a familiar ring to readers of this journal, it is not really surprising. At Harvard, Goleman studied psychology under the late David McClelland, who is widely regarded as the founding father of the competency movement.
At the start of his career in the early 1970s, Goleman worked for the McBer consultancy (now known as Hay/McBer) which McClelland had founded in 1963 and which carried out some of the first competency work for US organisations. Managing emotions at work Goleman’s latest book, Working with emotional intelligence2, draws on work from the burgeoning competency industry which began in those pioneering days, and those influences are clear to see.
The book is, at least in part, an attempt to describe those “essential human competencies” that can really make a difference to someone’s success in life. What Goleman’s work also “brings to the party”, though, is an explanation of just why abilities like self-awareness and empathy should be so important – an explanation that is rooted in biological science.
As a journalist covering the behavioural and brain sciences for the New York Times, Goleman had become aware of several new areas of neurological research. These showed that the parts of the brain responsible for the emotions functioned separately, but in parallel to, those parts responsible for rational thought.
This research allowed Goleman to argue that the emotions have the power either to sabotage or enhance rational thought. Crucial to the well-balanced person’s success in life, he argues, is the ability to manage emotions so that they work in harmony with rationality. And this is what Goleman calls “emotional intelligence” or EQ.
Goleman’s latest book brings the notion of “emotional competence” right back to McClelland’s starting-point: the workplace. When Goleman came to London recently to promote the book, I talked to him about this latest attempt to codify the competencies of what he calls “star performers”, and about his claim that organisations as a whole should be trying to become more emotionally intelligent.
Tidal wave In his latest book, Goleman describes the reaction of business people to the idea of emotional intelligence as a “tidal wave”. I began by asking him why he felt his ideas should have met with such an eager response, and why this should have happened now. He told me: “I was shocked, actually, by the worldwide receptiveness to this message. When I wrote the first book, it was full of American examples; it wasn’t written with a worldwide audience in mind.”
He thinks there are two reasons why emotional intelligence should have hit such a nerve: “One is that people everywhere are struggling with the same problems and human issues. I think that the ratcheting up of global competitiveness, and the resulting demands for adaptability, for managing stress, for teamwork, for collaboration, are escalating, and in the workplace people are feeling this.” The second reason, he thinks, is the fact that his ideas are based on scientific research: “Emotional intelligence is based on a new understanding of neurology and of brain function, and I think this gives it a lot of credibility. Working for the New York Times I saw, emerging from 10 years of data, new insights into the nature of human abilities, and some very profound implications for personal development, and for business and for education.”
Emotional competencies Goleman’s latest book draws on research into competency frameworks in nearly 500 organisations which, he says, showed a remarkable degree of similarity. In fact, he believes the ubiquity of competency headings like “self-awareness”, “interpersonal skills”, and so on provides independent confirmation of the importance of emotional intelligence. He told me: “It’s encouraging to me that people using different methodologies, operating from different assumptive systems, and working in very different organisational cultures all come up with the same ingredients.”
The book argues that emotional intelligence matters twice as much as IQ or technical expertise when it comes to distinguishing “star performers” from the merely average employee. And the fact that so many employers are including “emotional competencies” in their frameworks, Goleman says, “gives me more confidence in saying that this is true for jobs of all kinds”.
The book suggests its own “emotional competence framework” consisting of 25 competencies listed under five “domains”: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills.
Goleman told me he thought that organisations could use the model to check their own frameworks and make sure they had not overlooked any crucial emotional competencies. But was he really suggesting, I wondered, that every employee in every organisation across the globe needed the same 25 competencies? He replied: “No. I think you have to understand that this is a generic model. Every organisation in the world is like every other organisation in some respects.” He realises, he says, that organisations are also unique, and he thinks that competency models “can get increasingly precise: you can come up with one that is unique to that company.” However, he argues that “the fact that there is such a large shared variance at the general level makes me feel that it is very useful methodologically and practically to have a general model.” This may be especially true, he feels, for the most senior people in an organisation.
He said: “As you go up the organisational ladder, the ratio of excellence that’s attributable to emotional intelligence is larger – at the top levels, it’s about 85% to 90%. And I think – though this is just a theoretical speculation – that there may be greater similarity between companies in terms of what’s needed for outstanding leadership.” The subject of leadership is one that has exercised Goleman a good deal. As well as covering it in depth in his latest book, he has also recently published an article on the subject
3. Goleman told me: “I was very interested in McClelland’s data in the PepsiCo study, which has also been replicated in some other companies. He found that the outstanding leaders had a critical mass of strengths that came from all of the emotional intelligence domains.” He went on: “If you don’t have self-management skills, you’ll be Bill Clinton – you may be fabulous at empathy and have incredible social skills, but the fact that you can’t control your impulses is going to sabotage you. The PepsiCo study offers good evidence of the catalytic interaction that occurs when you have skills across the domains – that’s where you find the really exceptional people.
And that suggests a very strong business case for grooming people for these abilities, or selecting people with these abilities, particularly for top leadership.” As this line of thought had led us on to the issue of selection, I questioned Goleman as to whether, in fact, he saw this as a suitable use for his emotional competence model. Does the model – with its list of competencies like “self-confidence”, “adaptability”, “initiative”, “service orientation” and “change catalyst” – lend itself to translation into application forms, interview questions and so forth? As his answer shows, Goleman has some reservations about this.
He told me: “I think people have to be very careful. On the one hand, it makes good sense. You do want to do a systematic interview and listen for whether people have these abilities or not. I think that the really good executive recruiters, for instance, are people who have emotional intelligence and who recognise it in others. But I don’t think you should use the model for any kind of selection test.” In fact, he is scathing about “so-called EQ tests”.
He argued: “There are several self-report tools that are being sold as tests of emotional intelligence, but I think it would be a big mistake to use any of them for selection, if only because the first domain of emotional intelligence is self-awareness.
If someone is low on that ability, how are you going to trust any of their other self-assessments, just for one? And for another: if you ask someone how empathic they are and then correlate that with an objective measure, the correlation is about zero. If you ask people who know that person well, you get a very high correlation, but you can’t do that when you’re hiring people because you don’t get straight responses.” Nor is he happy with the idea of using his emotional competence model for pay.
He said: “If you use a competence model for reward, you’re making a leap of faith. I think people too often have a naïve understanding of competence models. Whether a person does well or not depends on many factors, one of the most powerful of which is whether they have the critical mass of competencies. What that critical mass looks like may differ from person to person, and someone may be quite outstanding but draw on a competence you don’t even have in your model.
So, I think that performance alone should be the criterion for reward.” Influences: McClelland, Boyatzis Much of the data about competency frameworks which Goleman uses in his latest book comes from the work of Hay/McBer, the consulting firm David McClelland set up. Goleman told me: “Partly, that was because of my ongoing friendship with David, who was still sharing data with me 25 years after I’d left McBer.” He added: “What appealed to me about David McClelland’s work, when I came back to it, was that there was a methodology, and one I was familiar with.”
This was the “behavioural event interview” technique pioneered by McClelland. In a further link with his early career, Goleman’s new consulting firm, Emotional Intelligence Services, has formed a partnership with the Hay Group to deliver programmes to assess and develop emotional intelligence. Also participating in this venture is Richard Boyatzis, another former student of McClelland’s – and against whose celebrated model of managerial competence5 Goleman told me he had cross-checked his own emotional competence model.
When I interviewed Boyatzis recently for this journal, he was very concerned to emphasise that competency’s roots lay in the idea of developing people. I wondered whether Goleman shared this focus. Surely, when it comes to something as fundamental as the emotions, there is a limited amount anyone can do to change them? Development – “worst practice” I found, however, that Goleman was just as passionate about development as Boyatzis had been.
He told me: “Emotional intelligence, unlike IQ, tends to increase in every decade of life. It’s learned.” “You can be a person who, as an infant, is very prone to tantrums, but because of the way you were raised, the experiences you had at school and along the way, you learn to manage that very well, and you won’t be the one who blows up in anger on the job.
I think it’s extremely important to understand a) that these are learnable abilities, and b) that it’s a different mode of learning than that which pertains to rational thought, because it’s a different part of the brain which is learning.” He feels that employers have been slow to realise the implications of this. He said: “I think a lot of efforts in training in this area are poorly designed, ineffective and a waste of time and money.” Towards the end of his new book, Goleman has a chapter that itemises some of the ways in which organisations can help individuals to develop their emotional competencies.
He told me: “One of the most common worst practices is failing to pay any attention to whether people want to be there or not. In this area, people have to be highly motivated in order to sustain the ongoing period of effort it’s going to take to learn.” As a corollary of this, he told me, “learning in this domain is better if people have a tailored learning plan, one that they have some say in designing. But companies typically put people through ‘cookie-mould’ programmes where it’s assumed that the same strategy for learning is going to help everybody.”
The emotional brain, he argues, “learns through repetition and practice”. So, in order to learn emotional intelligence at work, “you need both a supportive climate and someone to help you, a coach perhaps, maybe a learning partner, maybe a learning team. You need someone you can talk to regularly, to discuss what to do at those times when you blow it, you relapse and go back to your old behaviour.
How do you turn that around into an experience that you can learn from, to prepare yourself so that next time around you’ll do better?” Because our experiences actually help to shape our brains, Goleman argues, unlearning our existing behaviour patterns and learning new ones “takes a couple of months at least”. But, he told me: “Companies so often just won’t support people through that. Even now, companies come to me and say: ‘We think that’s a really great model but, you know, we’ve only got two days’. HR people are slow to realise that we really need to rethink how we’re spending our money here if we’re going to get a return on investment.” And Goleman is clear that return on training investment is what all this is about: “It is worth organisations’ time and money to have people go through a training that will improve their performance, if only because of the immense difference in effectiveness those people will then bring to the jobs they’re doing.”
In his view, though, most companies “don’t even think about return on investment”. Nevertheless, he told me that: “More and more people in HR tell me that they’re being asked to justify their expenditures. Evaluation is one of the things I think ought to be done routinely – but a tough evaluation. There should be some objective measure of performance, to see if there was enhancement, as well as a direct assessment of the competencies that you originally assessed people on.” Of course, many of these concepts – self-managed learning, tailored programmes, coaching and learning teams, evaluating the return on training investment – have been around for some time. Was there anything distinctive, I asked Goleman, that emotional intelligence added to them?
He replied: “I think that the main contribution of emotional intelligence is in making the argument for going to the trouble of putting all these elements together. What’s new is the rationale. The idea of emotional intelligence is based on an understanding from neuroscience, and that brings something very new to the discussion of competence and of development. Because it’s been easy before to say ‘We know that would help, but it doesn’t really matter’ or ‘We don’t have the time’. I think it’s harder and harder to make those excuses now.” “550-degree feedback”
Another issue that Goleman thinks is crucial to the development of emotional competencies is to give people “a very honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses”. He said: “I think that the feedback should be confidential to the person being assessed, not to the company. Otherwise, you get skewed responses or you get unfortunate consequences.”
Some of the American organisations he works with have taken the idea of 360-degree feedback a step further. So-called “550-degree feedback” not only asks customers and people at work to comment on the person’s competencies, but even their families. Goleman told me: “Assessment from people’s private lives is often the most powerful data for them in wanting to improve, but it won’t work in every culture.” The idea of appealing to people’s most personal motivations is a theme that runs through Goleman’s thinking. He told me that helping people to develop their emotional competencies is not only good for business, but for individuals too.
He said: “I think there’s a huge payoff for the individual in this kind of training because, guess what, these competencies also apply at home, how you handle your kids, how you handle your relationships.” At this point in our discussion, it struck me that some people might feel uneasy about this blurring of the lines between one’s private and work lives. And, in fact, that this might be an objection to using the notion of “emotional intelligence” in the workplace at all. Is it really any business of my employer’s what I am like, at this deep emotional level? When I put these points to him, Goleman said he thought that my uneasiness might be “culture-specific”. He said: “For Americans, it’s a big inducement.”
And he strongly defended the idea that organisations must link their development programmes to what people are like. He told me: “Organisations often fail to tie the development effort to a person’s own values, their sense of what matters to them. There is a temptation to assume that, just because there’s a gap between a person’s profile and some generic competency model, they’ll want to change. But change is driven most powerfully when people believe that what they’re going to do matters for them. If you can’t sell the person on it, if they haven’t bought into the need for change, they’re not going to make the effort.” The emotionally intelligent organisation The final issue that I wanted to discuss with Goleman was the idea in his latest book of the “emotionally intelligent organisation”. He told me: “I believe that emotional intelligence operates at the individual level, the small group level, and the organisational level. I think it’s a rather new idea to consider the emotional intelligence of an organisation. It’s not there in the literature.” What is there in the literature, of course, and what seems on the face of it a similar idea, is the “core competence of the organisation”.
As outlined by thinkers like C K Prahalad, Gary Hamel and Jerry Porras7, core competence is a set of corporate skills, knowledge, technologies and systems that gives an organisation its unique competitive advantage. When I asked Goleman about the links between this idea and the “emotionally intelligent organisation”, he replied: “I think the notion of the ‘core competence of the organisation’ makes lots of sense, but the way it’s usually implemented is blind to emotional competence.
I don’t think that core competence is usually taken to mean how human assets are leveraged, that is, the ability of people to collaborate or communicate within a company, to read the customer base with a high level of empathy, to be nimble and adaptable. It tends to be MBA-think.” Goleman told me: “My own sense is that, in the increasingly competitive global marketplace, emotional intelligence at the organisational level will emerge as one of the key factors determining which companies survive and thrive and which companies die. I think it’s always been the case – we’ve just never noticed that this was a malady that companies died of.” He went on: “Microsoft is in trouble because it lacked political awareness, it had a deficiency in understanding how it was perceived outside the technology world and outside its market. It got into big trouble and it finally saw that it was naïve about a whole range of ability in the emotional intelligence domain.” It was clear from our discussion that the idea of organisational emotional intelligence is one that Goleman is still worrying about. He told me: “I’m interested in the challenge of assessing emotional intelligence at the organisational level. It would be interesting to get the organisational profile – collectively, what are our strong points and our weak points – and then to implement some development around those.”
And in a pointer, perhaps, to the way in which his research might go in the future, he told me: “I think you can look at organisational emotional intelligence at two levels. One is the aggregate of individual excellence and weakness. But I also think that at the collective level there are emergent properties, that this domain exhibits itself in a way which is more than the simple sum total of the emotional intelligence of each person. Exactly how it manifests itself is a very interesting empirical question. I don’t know the answers, and I’m intrigued by it.”
References 1. Emotional intelligence, Daniel Goleman, Bloomsbury, 1996. 2. Working with emotional intelligence, Daniel Goleman, Bloomsbury, 1998. 3. “What makes a leader”, Daniel Goleman, Harvard Business Review, November–December 1998, pp.93–102, reprint no.98606. 4. “Behavioural event interviews as an alternative to traditional ability tests as a way to identify personal competencies associated with top executive success”, David C McClelland, Psychological Science, vol. 9 no.5, September 1998. 5. The competent manager: a model for effective performance, Richard E Boyatzis, McBer and Co, Wiley, 1982. 6. “Interview with Richard Boyatzis”, Katherine Adams, Competency: The Annual Benchmarking Survey, 1998/99. 7. See, for example, Competing for the future, Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Harvard Business School Press, 1994; Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies, James C Collins and Jerry I Porras, Century, Random House, 1995; and Intelligent enterprise: a knowledge- and service-based paradigm for industry, James Brian Quinn, Free Press, Macmillan, 1992. Note: this interview was originally published in Competency, vol. 6 no.4, Summer 1999, pp.33–38.

Emotional Intelligence-1

Emotional Intelligence

What is “emotional intelligence”?
Overview The term “emotional intelligence” (otherwise known as “EQ” or “EI”) may be more of a hindrance than a help to the understanding and acceptance of the ideas behind it.
Most people realise that they get the best out of their dealings with other people, whether casual encounters or long-term relationships, if they make some effort.
Take three examples. – Getting on the same wavelength as the other person – knowing what they are feeling, their concerns and motivations (also known as establishing rapport, and/or empathy) – often takes time, effort and concentration.
But this understanding can provide a common ground between the two people. It can improve their understanding of what the other person is saying, and help them work more productively together.
Therefore, a key aspect of emotional intelligence is being able to use, and develop, empathy skills when dealing with other people. – People also often take more notice of the person they are dealing with if that person is able to give clear information about what they want, to be upfront about things that matter to them, and the ways in which the other person is upsetting or annoying them.
But few people respond well to someone who makes a series of strident demands or complains constantly. Instead, they are more likely to respond favourably if the other person makes it clear what they want in a non-threatening, but firm way. Therefore, this skill of assertiveness is also a key aspect of emotional intelligence. – Most of us come under pressure at some time or another. We may call this stress, overwork, or give it another label. But the result is often the same. We become angry, intolerant and incapable of functioning in our normal way. To others, these changes can appear as hostility, anger or aggression, and usually make it difficult for them to deal with us productively. Our own work may suffer too, as the pressure leads us to make mistakes, take the wrong decisions or let important things slide. Being able to recognise these pressures and find ways of dealing with them in a less negative way is the skill of resilience. This is another key aspect of emotional intelligence.
Science and more What I hope the above examples illustrate is that emotional intelligence is about how we manage our own emotions in terms of their effect on others and on ourselves.
The name that immediately springs to mind in terms of making the concept of emotional intelligence widely known is that of Daniel Goleman. His first book on the subject, Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) was an overnight bestseller, and has been translated into 30 languages. The book begins with the insight that people who have high IQ can nevertheless fail – at school, at work, and in relationships.
Goleman’s idea is that success in life depends just as much on abilities like self-awareness, self-control and empathy, which are rooted in the “emotional brain”. He followed this up with Working with emotional intelligence – a book that applies his theories to the workplace (Goleman, 1998), and which has had at least as much impact on the popular imagination in raising the profile of emotional intelligence. Some definitions In no particular order: 1. Dr Reuven Bar-On has been a pioneer in developing the concept of emotional intelligence, and applying it to the workplace.
He has developed an assessment tool of individuals’ levels of emotional intelligence. His Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory was first published in North America by Multi-Health Systems in 1997, and has since been translated into more than 20 languages. He defines emotional intelligence in this way: “Emotional and social intelligence is a multi-factorial array of interrelated emotional, personal and social abilities that influence our overall ability to actively and effectively cope with daily demands and pressures.” (Bar-On, 2000).
2. Professor Victor Dulewicz and Professor Malcolm Higgs, two leading UK-based researchers into emotional intelligence, have analysed thousands of individuals’ psychometric and performance assessments to develop a series of emotional intelligence assessment tools. In their 1999 book, they define emotional intelligence as a concept that involves: “Achieving one’s goals through the ability to manage one’s own feelings and emotions, to be sensitive to, and influence, other key people, and to balance one’s motives and drives with conscientious and ethical behaviour”. (Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999)
3. Peter Salovey and John (Jack) D Mayer are pioneers into the scientific bases for emotional intelligence, and have collaborated with David Caruso in developing an ability test of individuals’ emotional intelligence. According to Geetu Orme (2001), their 1990 article in an academic journal was the first publication to carry the results of their research into emotional intelligence and, indeed, to coin the term itself. “We define emotional intelligence as the subset 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 actions.” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990)
4. Geetu Bharwaney (formerly Geetu Orme), one of those leading the application of emotional intelligence concepts through her company Ei World, has highlighted some of the core concepts about emotional intelligence: “– EQ is a set of non-cognitive abilities that influence your ability to get on in life; – EQ works synergistically with IQ to enhance performance; – EQ can be learned; – EQ can be measured; and – EQ is what differentiates exceptional from mediocre performance.” (Orme and Cannon, 2000).
5. In addition, Geetu, in an article written with Reuven Bar-On, also talks about the broad area of emotional and social intelligence. These both focus “on the use of emotions in coping with daily demands”. They point out that most definitions of this broad area involve one or more of the following: “– the ability to understand and express emotions constructively; – the ability to understand others’ feelings and establish cooperative interpersonal relationships; – the ability to manage and regulate emotions in an effective manner; – the ability to cope realistically with new situations and to solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature as they arise; and – the ability to be sufficiently optimistic, positive and self-motivated in order to set and achieve goals.” (Orme and Bar-On, 2002)
6. Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf are the authors of one of the influential books of the 1990s in applying emotional intelligence concepts to the workplace; it sprang from the research that they had been undertaking in this field: “Emotional intelligence requires that we learn to acknowledge and understand feelings – in ourselves and others – and that we appropriately respond to them, effectively applying the information and energy of emotions in our daily life and work.” “A more complete definition is as follows: ‘Emotional intelligence is the ability to sense, understand and effectively apply the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, information, connection and influence.’” (Cooper and Sawaf, 1998)
7. Daniel Goleman is arguably the most influential advocate of the value of developing emotional intelligence. In his book Working with emotional intelligence, he develops his controversial argument that emotional intelligence is more important than any other factor in “determining who excels at a job”. In that book, he explains that: “Emotional intelligence does not mean giving free rein to feelings - ‘letting it all hang out’. Rather, it means managing feelings so that they are expressed appropriately and effectively, enabling people to work together smoothly toward their common goals.” (Goleman, 1998) References Bar-On, Reuven (2000), “Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory”, in The handbook of emotional intelligence, edited by Reuven Bar-On and James D Parker, Jossey-Bass. Cooper, Robert and Sawaf, Ayman (1998), Executive EQ: emotional intelligence in business, London: Orion. Goleman, Daniel (1996), Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ, London: Bloomsbury. Goleman, Daniel (1998), Working with emotional intelligence, London: Bloomsbury. Higgs, M and Dulewicz, V (1999), Making sense of emotional intelligence, Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Orme, Geetu (2001), Emotionally intelligent living, Carmarthen: Crown House. Orme, Geetu and Cannon, Kate (2000), “Everything you wanted to know about implementing an EQ programme: 1 – Getting started”, Competency & Emotional Intelligence Quarterly, vol. 8 no.1, Autumn, pp.19–24. Orme, Geetu and Bar-On, Reuven (2002), “The contribution of emotional intelligence to individual and organisational effectiveness, Competency & Emotional Intelligence Quarterly, vol. 9 no.4, Summer, pp.23–28. Salovey, Peter and Mayer, John D (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, vol. 9 no.3, pp.185–211.