Ten years ago, Daniel Goldman advanced existing concepts of emotional intelligence to apply to leadership. His idea: The best leaders are empathetic and self-aware, and use these abilities to understand what is motivating individuals and groups in the organization and also using them to lead others.
Now Goleman is back in the current issue of Harvard Business Review with a look at how recent research in social neuroscience has caused him to dive even deeper into the workings of the human brain for lessons on leadership.
According to Goleman and coauthor Richard Boyatzis, neuroscientists have discovered that when people interact, "certain things leaders do -- specifically, exhibit empathy and become attuned to others' moods -- literally affect both their own brain chemistry and that of their followers.
Mr. Spock to the CEO's Office, Please
Literally affect brain chemistry of you and others? Talk about your Vulcan Mind Meld. But yes, the research suggests that leaders' emotions and actions can cause followers to mirror in their own brains those same feelings and deeds.
Goleman's emotional intelligence was based upon individual psychology, but this new work suggests the brain is wired with social circuits. So an effective leader must have social intelligence as well as emotional intelligence, the authors argue.
"Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations -- or even mastering social skill sets -- than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need."
Are you a socially intelligent leader? The article includes a survey to help you gauge your own abilities. Here are three of the questions:
- Are you attuned to others' moods?
- Do you understand social networks and know their unspoken norms?
- Do you coach and mentor others with compassion and personally invest time and energy in mentoring?
What do you think? Does successful people management come down to a core set of unmoving principles we already innately understand (give employees positive feedback as well as negative feedback)? Or does science, by helping describe how people think, react, and are motivated at a molecular level, provide us actionable information we can use in everyday practice?