Emotional intelligence defines the organization

When a CEO needs to change their organization, they must direct their attention to transforming management. Those few who manage the company, both the C-suite and the general managers, set the mood and either help or hinder change. And it is the top leader, the CEO, who helps them change.

Joan’s story capitalizes the effect a top manager can have on her direct reports. Joan didn’t begin an inspection of the business to identify what was wrong, she spent time with her leaders. She invested time building trust with them and showing empathy. She coached them in the areas they were interested in growing. When it was time for them to set goals and be held responsible the leaders were ready because they knew she cared for their growth, not only the business results ({goleman-primal}, pg. 85-87).

Importance

Often leaders are gauged by the number of people they lead. If a CEO runs a 1,000 person company, that CEO is thought to be a superior leader to the CEO of 50 people. This type of comparison obscures a leader’s actual work, which is to influence the leaders they are responsible for. When seen in this light, the thousand person CEO likely has as many or fewer people they must influence than the fifty person CEO whose role it is to influence every one of those fifty people. Thus a wise leader will focus their attention on the few in order to influence the many regardless of whether those few are supervisors of thousands or a team of three.

Application

At kCura there is a strong culture of managerial coaching. The interplay of styles Joan utilized (Goleman, pg. 85) is similar to the styles I see between managers. They take the time to invest one-on-one, the senior to the junior manager, and convene as one body to make decisions and set responsibilities. I’ve seen two benefits this has had on the company.

First, poor leaders are removed quickly. There was a particular manager with a great degree of technical expertise but low emotional intelligence. He was happy to design systems and write code, but couldn’t be bothered with performance reviews or other people-centered activities. Because other managers held him responsible, his practices were caught early. Although coaching was offered to help him become a better manager, he decided to leave. He had worked at kCura less than six months.

Second, managers constantly improve. My manager has weak points I’ve mentioned in earlier classes. One of those was a propensity to catch every mistake I made and review it with me on a weekly basis. Although it was done in a good-natured way, it became irritating to re-hash every mistake I made (I was also learning a new role - cut me some slack dude!). Before I had asked him to give me more slack, he had begun to back off on every detail. This I attribute to the influence of those who are coaching him. It is gratifying to see my manager improve; even better than having a ‘perfect’ one from the start.

References