However, despite global research,
powerful stories and passionate
proposals, at times there is still
resistance to EI. In business
conversations with heads of
human resources or learning
and development, as well as with
business leaders themselves, words
used to describe EI still include
discretionary, soft, new-age, touchyfeely or, worst of all, fluffy.
Often, these comments come from
individuals in organizations that
most need EI development and
bear the greatest competitive risks
from ignoring it. Many of these
organizations happen to reside
in “left-brained” sectors, such as
technology, financial services,
health care and pharmaceuticals,
where rational, technical and
logical thinking skills are developed,
rewarded and celebrated,
but inter- and intrapersonal
effectiveness are often relegated to
the “nice-to-have” column.
Relegated, that is, until productivity
levels drop, innovation wanes, key
talent is hemorrhaging and, most
tellingly, employee engagement
levels fall. And it is frequently when
some or all of these conditions
arise that executive management
calls on the services of a coach
or consultant.
A Tale of Two Leaders
With these client conditions and
resistance to EI as a backdrop, our
organization launched a global
research study in 2010 to examine
the correlation between leaders’ EI
and employee engagement.
To illustrate the purpose of this
study, let’s use an example.
Think for a moment about
two different leaders: one
who frequently demonstrates
emotionally intelligent behavior
in the workplace, and a second
leader who is not aware of, doesn’t
value or doesn’t care about
EI and therefore infrequently
demonstrates emotionally
intelligent behavior.
Recall the seven being states of
the emotionally intelligent leader.
Then, think about a leader who
demonstrates low levels of EI and
name the leadership qualities or
being states you’d associate with
that individual instead. (Some words
that come to mind might include
disconnected, guarded, insensitive,
limited, temperamental, indifferent
and reactive.)
Now, think about the two leaders’
direct reports. Which leader is
better equipped to lead, inspire,
motivate and ultimately engage
his or her team? It doesn’t take a
psychometrician with a doctoral
degree to guess which leader will
be more effective. Our intuition
and experiences in business
indicate clearly which leader is
better equipped to create the
conditions where motivation and
engagement flourish.
Of course, intuition is all well and
good. But hard numbers and facts
are better—particularly when
making the business case for EI
to left-brained, rational, logical,
technical clients.
A Global Study of EI and
Employee Engagement
Genos International’s global research
study on EI and engagement
commenced in November 2010.
The ongoing study, which now
includes participating organizations
across 3 continents and is growing
by the month, is aimed at proving
this hypothesis: Leaders who
demonstrate high levels of EI in
the workplace drive higher levels
of employee engagement in the
organization as evidenced by the
individual engagement levels of their
direct reports.
The structure of the research is
fairly straightforward. Participating
client organizations assess the level
of emotionally intelligent behavior
of their leaders with our EI multirater assessment. This behaviorbased, multi-rater assessment
tool reports self-perception and
the perception of individuals who
work with leaders, including peers,
managers and, most importantly for
this research, direct reports.
Direct reports evaluate the level
of EI demonstrated by their
direct managers and complete
a supplemental 12-question
engagement survey that measures
their own level of engagement in
three specific facets of employee
engagement and specifically the
degree to which they:
• Praise the organization to others.
• Perform above and beyond what
is expected of them.
• Persist in the face of adversity.
Together, these three dimensions
of our engagement model (and
other engagement models used
around the globe) correlate
directly with a raft of company
performance metrics, including
productivity, retention, shareholder
return, profitability, employee
satisfaction and customer
satisfaction. Organizations with
highly engaged employees outperform their counterparts with low
levels of engagement. Employee
engagement, like EI, is a wellresearched field with compelling
business outcomes. The “hard”
nature of these outcomes has
captured the attention of business
leaders globally, including and
especially those in left-brained
industry sectors. Correlate EI in
leaders with driving employee
engagement, and you have a
powerful business case for EI.
As data continues to accumulate
from around the world, it indicates
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE >
Coaching World 25