How Does Emotional Intelligence Really Help Leaders Succeed?

Emotional intelligence (EI) first broke onto the corporate scene in the 1990s and has steadily grown in popularity ever since. As a Research Scientist and consultant working with the EQ-i 2.0, one of the leading assessments of emotional intelligence in use today, I get a lot of questions on the topic of EI. I’ve received the following question several times, and it illustrates some of the common assumptions (and misconceptions) that people have about EI.

If emotional intelligence is so important, why don’t we see more of it in highly successful leaders?

This is a question that is likely relatable for many of us. If emotional intelligence is so important, why do so many abrasive managers and CEOs seem to thrive in our corporate world? And at the very top, the likes of Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and many more have developed a reputation for their assertive leadership styles. Where is the EI?
Let’s explore this further

While there are different models of EI, it can generally be described as the understanding, recognition, and management of emotions, and using those to build relationships and get things done. And while EI can be thought of as a single element, every model breaks it down into subcomponents, including qualities like Self-Perception, Self-Expression and more. Some models describe EI as an ability, a trait, or a mix of both.

Typically, people who are described as “emotionally intelligent” are characterized as nice, agreeable, and sensitive to the feelings of others. And while research has shown that people high in EI do tend to be lower on the dark triad traits of Machiavellianism and psychopathy, it is still possible to be both emotionally intelligent and a jerk. EI is a set of qualities that involve the understanding and management of emotions, but those qualities can be used in different ways and to achieve different outcomes. For example, someone who is empathetic may care about the feelings of others and be kind and considerate, while another might use their empathy to deceive and manipulate. So yes, emotionally intelligent leaders can still be narcissistic and callous. In fact, it is these sorts of leaders that you need to be most wary of.

To many, the most obvious example of one’s achievement as a leader is financial performance, and we’ve mentioned some prime examples of financially successful leaders who can be considered emotionally intelligent while still being abrasive and aggressive in their leadership styles. But money isn’t the only way to measure success, and it’s important to be explicit as to what success looks like in your organization to identify the skills needed to achieve it. For example, leaders need to create teams that are diverse and inclusive, maintain ethical and moral standards, and get good PR (and avoid bad PR). Leaders that lack emotional intelligence and are only incentivized to achieve financial results are likely to encounter challenges that will hurt their performance in the long run. These leaders can, over time, create a culture that lacks the support, trust, and team focus that enables sustained results. For leaders today, how they succeed can be just as, if not more, important than what they accomplish.

The bottom line is this: leaders don’t succeed alone; they succeed through others. That’s where emotional intelligence comes in.

The best way to answer this broad of a question is to look at research that addresses it in the aggregate by observing and evaluating many leaders and the relationship between their emotional intelligence and important outcomes. And while examples from prominent business leaders might be interesting case studies, they can’t answer this question on their own. In general, we should be very cautious in the lessons we learn from the case studies, as one person’s road to success is often a poor map for others.

Emotional intelligence has been studied exhaustively over the years, and while it has found itself the subject of bold and outsized claims at times, there is strong evidence that it plays a critical role in achieving a range of positive results for both leaders and their followers. For example, EI has been linked to more authentic leadership and to more satisfied, higher-performing employees. And the research that we have done at MHS has shown that successful leaders tend to be significantly more emotionally intelligent than the general population, so much so that we created a special benchmark on the EQ-i 2.0 for leaders to be compared against.

More recent studies have helped build a more nuanced understanding of EI, and have demonstrated that EI is even more important for jobs with more emotional and social demands, like entrepreneurship. Understanding the context that a leader operates in is crucial because the challenges and demands of leaders can differ greatly, and what drives success for one may not work for the next. For example, while one leader might thrive by building networks and alliances using a strong political acumen (perhaps driven by skills in Empathy and Interpersonal Relationships) another might succeed because of their decision-making and presence under pressure (utilizing Problem Solving, Impulse Control, and Stress Tolerance).

Research can help us build models and measurement tools but being able to practically apply them to help leaders achieve their goals is where a skilled coach can help. Coaches trained in the use of validated emotional intelligence assessments like the EQ-i 2.0 can help leaders build self-awareness, identify high-leverage growth opportunities, and create and achieve development goals. And incorporating EI into your organizational development efforts can help build leadership capabilities that will lead to sustained improvements in well-being, collaboration, and performance. So, when you think about what leadership success looks like in your organization and the skills needed to achieve it, don’t neglect the role of emotional intelligence!
 

​​​​​* The opinions expressed in this article reflect the views of the author and may not represent the official position of MHS Assessments.