For all of us and with regard to intelligence, the important thing is how we cultivate and apply what we have; But if we were to think about decision-making in the company, we would surely have to focus our reflection on management personnel. Every time, by the way, more decisions are made by intuition, and it is said that this is the jewel in the crown of intelligence, but let's think about the most everyday cognitive and emotional intelligence… What others? Could we speak of an intelligence of thinking, another of feeling and another of acting? Should we only speak of a single global individual? Should we speak of perverse or debased intelligence in the business world? From the collective intelligence of the organization?
In companies, people have been talking about the personality of individuals, their curricula, classic intelligence tests (for personnel selection), training, personal skills, management by competencies and many others things, but there seems to have been some resistance to specifically talking about emotional intelligence, despite some successful books on the subject.
After reading Daniel Goleman, Robert K. Cooper and other authors (also some Europeans), I attended a conference of the Association for the Advancement of Management (APD) - I think it was in 1999 - when the link emotional intelligence with the exercise of leadership. The speakers admitted that it had been slow to recognize the importance of emotional intelligence in companies, and they did it finally to link it to the exercise of leadership, which was perhaps the great buzzword of the 90s, and which today begins to arouse reservations.
One thought that emotional intelligence - like cognitive intelligence - was increasingly necessary for everyone, but it seemed fine to start with managers. In terms of leadership, it had become a good source of income for gurus and consultants, and perhaps EI could reinvigorate the concept. Without a doubt, the 21st century would bring a new profile for managers, and perhaps also - it was also said - a new profile, more autonomous (empowerment and, of course, teamwork also sounded), of many workers. I remember that I disliked the image of the shepherd and his sheep as a reflection of leadership, preferring a more contagious conception, so that we would all lead ourselves towards shared goals. Rather than follow the leader, I believed that shared goals had to be pursued:maybe because he had read Senge before Bennis; Or maybe because he had read too many chivalric books. But yes: emotional intelligence was linked to executive leadership.
There, at that conference organized by the APD, among other Spanish gurus (Mulder, Medina…), I was able to listen with satisfaction to José Antonio Marina, whose books I also read with great pleasure, and who, both then and now, seems to stand out from the emotional intelligence theory, which he considers a fad "started by Salovey and launched to stardom by Goleman." "There is, then, no cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence," says our prestigious essayist in his latest book (Anagrama's La intelligently unsuccessful). I don't know what he will think of Gardner's multiple intelligences, but Marina considers knowledge and affection inseparable (give these signifiers wide meaning), in the face of their influence on action. (The truth is that many factors that are difficult to separate must influence our action,and I don't think there are authors who question this, even if they defend mismatched theories).
Our essayist speaks of two levels of intelligence: structural or computational intelligence ("which is measured by tests"), and intelligence in action, or executive intelligence ("which is not measured by tests for now"). This division seemed necessary, because in the book (which he subtitles Theory and Practice of Stupidity) he talks about the use of intelligence, and tells us: “The discrepancy between being intelligent and behaving intelligently reveals that there is a hiatus between both levels, where a poorly described field of forces acts, and this opens up an interesting and urgent field of research ”. Well, this research, or at least a lively debate, I think, would be especially urgent in the business area… It will certainly emerge.
(If you accept a digressive parenthesis, I suggest that, when faced with any study of something that interests you, do not stay with the first author who captivates you - because of his ideas or because of his brilliance in exposing them - but read more, surrender Upon careful reflection, evaluate the consistency of the respective theses -maybe based on the research that supports them, but, in general, take care of your evaluation criteria-, avoid rushing, elaborate your own syntheses, and do not stop frequently questioning your Our own conclusions. The Information Society offers us much of this, but none is definitive; we do not usually perceive more than partial views of reality, and even we ourselves may suffer spurious tendencies to advance along interested paths. But, having said that,In the case of intelligence, I believe that theories are not as distant as they appear, and I consider that my modest personal initiation has allowed me to add, and never subtract, when reading different authors, often on the edge of my ability to understand).
Returning to the hiatus in which I left them, it is difficult to believe that, with all the researchers who have dedicated themselves to the subject with significant resources in recent decades, this distance has not yet been addressed, and even I came to think that it was precisely intelligence the emotional one that had come to cover her, at least partially. But I already said that Marina, when talking about intelligence, and although she uses very different adjectives in her works (computational, affective, creative, interpersonal…), prefers to speak of a single global intellectual capacity, to later address the manifestation (or not manifestation) of that in behavior, and also speak of "failed intelligence." Although the author speaks separately of cognitive failures and affective (and volitional) failures, he insists that “emotions influence knowledge,but knowledge influences emotions ”, to distance itself from the extended separate study of emotional intelligence.
It seemed appropriate to reread Goleman (The practice of emotional intelligence, by Kairos, 500 pages), to see if it relates or separates knowledge from feeling, and I have been able to verify, already on page 45, that it expressly relates them. This, however, does not prevent him from developing his model of emotional competencies (as is known, Goleman was a pupil of McClelland). It seems to me that there is no contradiction between these authors, but rather particular visions that enrich the whole; hence it has allowed me, in the digression of a while ago, to invite you to always read a lot on each topic. To give me an example, I was interested in the topic of intuition in the company because there was a lot of talk about it and perhaps all that glittered was not intuition…, and I found very varied points of view, among which I would not forget Parikh,Vaughan, Burke, Miller, Simon, Agor…
Intelligence at work
A little earlier we were talking about emotions and knowledge, and, taking the latter to the turbulent world of the company - be careful with the step -, we found another solid buzzword in the so-called "knowledge management", which comes to proclaim it as " ability to act ”, although we all know that doing well, with high performance, requires more than knowledge. Working well also requires social skills, certain beliefs, appropriate attitudes, character strengths… It requires acting with intelligence, and perhaps something more. I would suggest accepting, with Marina, that all our software works jointly, if not concurrently, within us, although it may be convenient to separate it to deepen it and advance in personal development.
As there was already enough talk about “knowledge management”, I improvised in 2000 (in a published text) the expression “thought management”, and then I have seen that there is also talk of “feelings management” or of emotions, both intra and interpersonal. Emotional capital (positive emotions) is surely a valuable asset of organizations, although it can also be a liability (negative emotions). In the end, we could talk about "intelligence management", especially in regard to making the best use of it; But what intelligence manages our intelligence?
Of course - do you accept it, or do I keep hammering you? - One thing is our intelligence understood in a holistic and systemic way, and another is the use we make of it. Perhaps the key here is indeed the key - the terra incognita of intelligence -: in the distance between the intelligence that we have and the use that we make of it; but it can already be seen that this distance (here is the will, but there must be much more) also depends on what we understand by intelligence, apart from several other things. This thought would apparently also apply to the collective intelligence of organizations. (I am not enjoying talking about intelligence without talking about happiness, and that is why I now add other relevant names: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Martin Seligman).
I was thinking now why Real Madrid, which seems to have almost all football intelligence, is getting frustrating results (2005). In this regard, and although there are many experts giving their opinion, I would point - spontaneously - to the psychic fatigue of the players, their sense of temporality, the entropy of goals or objectives of the institution, mere fortune, the impossibility of surpassing themselves, pressure from the media, possible rivalries in the squad, a certain collective narcissism, the inexorable, overwhelming, paralyzing weight of negative emotions… As my opinion will go unnoticed, I dare to say that all this influences the concentration of the players and in their individual and collective performance. The team will hit the bump, but do you mean these things Marina,when speaking of failed intelligence? I think these and others: do not miss it.
The powers
If the reader continues with me, I would like to refer now to the competency movement promoted by David McClelland, because it aims to obtain good results in professional performance. In other words, if we continue to talk about managers in companies, this would have a lot to do with the use of intelligence, both in decision-making and in their materialization. I suspect that managers relate their successes to the use of their intelligence, but their failures to exogenous factors. Of this, of the successes and failures of intelligence, there would be much to say, and even oneself - insolent - has said things; But don't miss out on the prestigious experts. Then I go to the one of the competitions: to the characteristics, of different nature, that seem to predict good results.
More than 20 years have passed since the publication of the famous article “Testing for Competence rather than for Intelligence”, with which McClelland came to revolutionize ideas about high performance. Management by competencies reached large Spanish companies in the mid-1990s, although the models were built and implemented perhaps at the end of the decade; recalling, I believe that the development of this postulate was concurrent with the arrival of the so - called e-learning and I do not know if, perhaps because of this, some trivialization could be incurred. This would be another story, but it also seems to me that, at the beginning of competency management, perhaps more effort was put into the tools and procedures than in the study of the necessary competencies in managers and workers.
To continue talking about management personnel, I recall that, with the intention of improving the use of their potential and their professional resources, highly studied programs were already being drawn up in 2000 for the development of their generic or transversal competences; surely now (2005) everything is done with better results. These competencies were classified and classified in different ways, but, among the soft competencies, one ends up distinguishing a group of cognitive competencies (perception of reality, concept management, capacity for analysis and synthesis, systemic perspective, creativity…) and another of more personal or emotional competencies (empathy, leadership, influence, initiative, flexibility, resistance to adversity…).
However, in addition to the development of these cognitive and emotional competencies of the manager, I remember (already in 2002) having defended before my colleagues the need for a third dimension: a moral or spiritual dimension, which I later wanted to relate to the intelligence of that field which Gardner also ended up pointing out. Here, although I no longer remember well, it included traits such as generosity, subordination to the common good, integrity…: professional “virtues”, I would say. Everything works at the same time within ourselves, but I think that, when developing ourselves, it is useful to distinguish features of our profile: the cognitive, the emotional, the spiritual… (Now that I reread this paragraph, I don't know if this third dimension it would have something to do with Marina's hiatus…).
I am now sending you a few words from Professor Santiago Álvarez de Mon, from IESE: “The concept of intelligence -speaking of the manager's intelligence- cannot be limited to the solvent handling of numbers, words, balances and management techniques. The logic and practice of the management professional must incorporate a series of essential skills and attitudes into their personal assets to unleash the human talent of their team of collaborators ”. Among these inexcusable traits, the teacher pointed out: the art of questioning, empathic listening to illuminate a fruitful dialogue, humility to learn to learn, the will and willingness to serve others, lucid and conscious management of time, creativity and vision to imagine new possibilities, the patience to know how to choose the most opportune timing…
Well, in effect, the manager's effectiveness, in addition to technical and functional knowledge and skills, would seem to require, in a very good measure, the three dimensions that I mentioned, and that Howard Gardner has already identified (along with others). Even when returning to this well-known developmental psychologist, I believe that linguistic intelligence would also be useful, although we could perhaps forget, in most companies, others such as musical, kinetic or spatial… Of course, we should apply these intelligences synergistically and conveniently in professional performance. (Important -very brief this new digression- the GoodWork Project, in which Gardner collaborates with Csikszentmihalyi and Damon; and very good, although I repeat it, the positive psychology of Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi,if you allow me to express opinions-feelings).
They are classified in one way or another, it seems positive to identify the competency traits that contribute to the achievement of professional results, for the short and long term. By referring only to the generic (that is, to what is common for almost all managers, whether they are marketing, production, sales or engineering), we would speak of: systemic thinking, concept management, oral and written communication, analysis and synthesis, mental agility, influence, empathy, flexibility, collective spirit, temperance, self-discipline, self-confidence, desire for achievement, open-mindedness, organizational awareness, perception of reality, commitment… I know that all these Labels can be empty if we don't describe them rigorously and precisely, but doing so now would be distracting.
Returning to the use of intelligence, would all this ensure success? Or, rather, would all these competencies ensure correct decisions and the achievement of results? On the one hand, I would highlight the existence of some special competencies -meta-competencies- that seem to contribute to the other being properly applied: self-knowledge, proactivity, integrity, resistance to adversity, desire for achievement, creativity, temperance, commitment… But, although This last series seems composed of high performance catalysts, there may certainly be, within us (and without) ingrained traps that seem to often lead us inexorably to doom.
Endogenous obstacles
Not only must we provide ourselves with catalysts for success, but we must also neutralize our endogenous barriers (apart from the exogenous ones), in order to obtain good results, to success. In the case of managers and executives, just as we identified the competencies, it would be possible to effectively identify the barriers. At first glance, I see obstacles as fatal as they are sadly frequent, although I would now highlight only a few. There is more, but let's see:
- The excessive cult of the ego. The presumption of infallibility. The greed for money or power. The rule of authority over rationality. The complacency. Clinging to strategic or tactical mistakes. An adulteration of goals. Disconnect from inner and outer reality.
Perhaps improvisation has led me to suggest the same thing in different words, but there are certainly more things that cloud the view of the manager or executive; I myself say, for example, that the worst thing that can happen to a young manager is to be very successful too soon. But, even if we do not incur these and other capital sins (many more than seven), it must be admitted that the usual load of nervous tension, psychic fatigue, environmental entropy, frustration and negative emotions, reduces our capacities, disperses our attention, and bitter our life… in many companies.
In other words, even though we are competent and virtuous, we can see our aspiration or expectation of success spoiled. It even occurs to me that sometimes failures have their origin in having trusted the wrong person, without ruling out bad luck. And speaking of bad luck, aren't the referees and judges wrong, and their mistake derails our expectations? Aren't there similar situations in the business world? The reader has enough matter for reflection if he did not already have it previously, and I am finishing; But read, read about it.
conclusion
Although I have tried to draw attention to aspects that seem significant to me, I do not intend to do anything but encourage debate. And I conclude. I conclude with some final ideas that do not synthesize, but perhaps indicate the field:
§ In the company, if the organization is collectively clumsy, individual intelligence is of little use.
§ In the individual, there are a lot of intellectual / emotional / spiritual resources waiting to be better cultivated.
§ We will always be wrong, and that also seems relatively healthy and very human, but we do not have to be so wrong.
§ Perhaps it would not be so bad, after all, to analyze what we have been wrong each time, without incurring the obsession.
§ The successes can also be analyzed, in case they were not as ours as it seems.
§ Important and urgent, that we all know ourselves better, although perhaps we do not really know what it means to know ourselves better.
Managers waste a good part of their intelligence and psychic energy (not to mention time and meetings) on tangential things, but perhaps others too.
§ Moral values are more transcendent than it seems, and could serve as a guide in doubt, and as a catalyst in effectiveness.
§ Language also distinguishes us from other animals, and we can use it better: much better.
§ Perhaps there are resources, such as creativity, intuition, and serendipity, that could be more useful if cultivated well (without adulteration).
§ With what it costs to acquire some knowledge, it is a pity that later we do not use it optimally, but this would have to be explained.
§ It seems to me that life, in general, seems more beautiful when we remember it than when we live it: let's live it better.
§ At work, there are two types of people: the upright and the corrupt; Or maybe three?
§ I think that many managers go to half gas, because the cult of the ego and the appearance consume the other medium.
§ It is better to win than to lose, but the best thing of all is that we all win: it seemed like a timely obviousness, but it is already the last.
