Emotional intelligence is a resource we all have, but it’s hard to use this capability without a process, a roadmap.  In the Six Seconds Model of Emotional Intelligence, there are three “pursuits” forming a process framework that enables people to be more effective by tapping the power and wisdom of feelings.  The first two pursuits are reasonably straightforward, albeit enormously challenging to accomplish consistently.  The third is a paradox that many find contradictory… yet it’s what makes the model transformational.  The first two are:

Know Yourself means tuning into our own feelings and behaviors, and seeing the links between our feelings, thoughts, and actions.  This requires a mindfulness and compassionately honest self reflection that’s extremely rare in a fast-paced world.

Choose Yourself means pausing to evaluate the data gathered from “Know Yourself,” and shifting from “reaction” to “response.”  To show up intentionally requires a delicate balance of self-discipline and self-acceptance — being our real selves honestly, and also being better each day.

To some, the third pursuit  sounds like weakness, but it’s actually the more powerful.  It’s a kind of super-charger on the engine of the model — it moves Six Seconds EQ from “nice to have” to “need to have.”  We call the third pursuit “Give Yourself,” and it’s about serving your purpose.  In the first two pursuits, we build awareness and then create intentional responses.  But what are we using that awareness and intention for?

In Give Yourself we ensure our steps are actually going someplace worthwhile.  It’s about connecting with others and the larger world, finding unique purpose and serving it.

Sometimes people react to the term “Give Yourself” because it might sound “too nice,” but actually it’s an intensely practical process.  The reality is that without this, we rarely get what we want; we wear armor that is an illusion of protection that only serves to isolate us.  Give Yourself is the way we get what we actually want instead of simply exercising the hedonic treadmill, endlessly pouring our lives into a bottomless pit of self-gratification or chasing external validation.

The central paradox is that when we are “taking” and “protecting” or even “striving” and “winning,” we usually get the opposite of what we truly want; but when we give, we get.  This principle defies the carefully constructed economists logic used to drive markets and industries and nations vying for dominance — yet it’s no less true.  When we’re focused on taking, we never have enough, we are never enough, and we are profoundly alone.  When we are giving there is abundance, we are more than enough (which is why we can give), and we are deeply connected.

Seth Godin recently wrote about this paradox and how the web actually amplifies the results of “Giving Yourself” (and of taking) — he calls Philanthropists the ones who give more, and Bandits the ones who take more:

The fascinating thing for me is how much more successful and happy the philanthropists are. It turns out that when you make the world smaller, you get to keep more of what you’ve got, but you end up earning a lot less (respect, connections, revenue) at the same time.

Does this match your experience?  Are those who focus on taking for themselves, in the end, less connected, less whole, less happy?  Does the attitude and action of genuine giving somehow unlock a sense of belonging and feeling of place in a larger world?

If that’s not enough, it turns our this commitment will also get you ahead in your career. New research we’re analyzing now, looking at over 27,000 individuals globally in terms of emotional intelligence scores:  Generally, more senior leaders have higher EQ (this is not a surprise since EQ is predictive of career success — hired for IQ, promoted for EQ).  The surprise, perhaps, is that the single EQ competency with the greatest gap is in Give Yourself, specifically the capability to Pursue Noble Goals.  In fact, those in the top band of the competency are almost twice as likely to be in the most senior organizational roles.

There is an element of giving that’s about generosity, an element about self-fulfillment… there is also a significant component of empathy.  When we emotionally connect with others, we recognize a fundamental shared humanity — we know we’re all in the same lifeboat.  It’s this connection that links giving to both happiness and performance.

In a fascinating TED talk (video is below), Michael Norton discusses a number of studies on the finance of happiness.  You CAN buy happiness, he asserts — it’s just not the type of transaction most of us imagine when we here that phrase.  The paradox of giving.

While many people will accept this “give to get” notion in their private lives (or at least in a church/temple/mosque), it seems to be a huge leap for modern entrepreneurs to see the value.  Yet some companies attract and retain great talent because their work matters.  Others have created a culture of mutual win that supports excellence — in Norton’s research, when an individual is given a €15 incentive for himself, the company generates €4.5 in value (a lost of over €10)… but when he’s given €15 to give to the benefit of others, the company returns a massive €78 in value (a 520% ROI).  Imagine creating a climate of giving in your company — a culture where people genuinely, spontaneously, and regularly exercise generosity!

Finally, in another forthcoming White Paper, we did a study of private bankers.  One might expect those who are financially driven and focused on their own success to make the most.  But again, the EQ competency of Pursue Noble Goals proves to be a strong predictor of the total wealth each banker has under her/his management.  Those in the group with the largest investment funds have over 30% higher scores on “Pursue Noble Goals” than their lower-performing colleagues.  The higher performers also showed nearly 25% higher scores on the self-awareness skill we call “Recognize Patterns.”

Those who give of themselves, those who serve a compelling purpose, are happier and are more often in senior positions.  They motivate others and build economic as well as social value.   So how do we integrate that into our lives?  Do we need to accumulate wealth so we can give it?  While people and companies frequently say they need to “do well in order to do good,” it turns out that actual abundance is probably not the source of giving.

While we might expect those who are well off to be more empathic and generous, some research suggests the opposite.  It is true that very wealthy give extensively (and the largest philanthropic donations do come from some fabulously wealthy patrons) there are many studies indicating that in proportion to their means, those with less actually give more.

What, then, is required?  Having more doesn’t seem to be the answer — instead we need to teach people to connect to their own and others’ emotions.  What awareness and skills can we build that allow people to transcend ego and connect with their larger vision?  And, especially to do so when they’re in times of stress and challenge?  Perhaps one reason the Six Seconds Model is so powerful is that it provides a process to shift toward this way of engaging — to align what we’re doing and how we’re responding to our own most significant goals.

***

I saw something along these lines on Facebook and thought I’d make my own version — together with Max Ghini & Lorenzo Fariselli from Six Seconds Europe, we used this as a tool for strategic planning (by making lists for each circle then deciding what work fits the “blue dot zone”).  Our India friends might label this “Karmabhumi” (the workspace that fulfills karma) — what else could we call it?  Am I the only one thinking it’s odd we don’t have a word for this kind of work that’s prosperous, purposeful, powerful, and meaningful (couldn’t think of a 4th “p” word for “meeting a need” – I’m losing my touch!)

Research says it’s not so clear that it helps… and the social-emotional effects may be grave.  Here’s an excerpt from a new article in the  Washington Post: Why we’re getting the homework question wrong

Two recent studies have fueled a growing debate over how much homework is too much, and whether it has any benefit at all. They reached different conclusions. One study, published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, presented findings that are consistent with about a century of scientific analysis on homework; that is, it concluded that homework offers no benefits for elementary and middle school children. In contrast, the second study found the opposite to be true. In that investigation, spending more than two hours a night doing homework led British students to achieve better results in English, math and science.

The article (by Vicki Abeles, a mother, activist, and director of the documentary “Race to Nowhere”) goes on to talk about the point that there ARE downsides, especially socially and emotionally.  My own experience is that homework is a major stressor on families as well as children… yet when I was a teacher, I gave homework, and sometimes a lot (though it was almost always either meaningful reading or project work).

Abeles’ conclusion is critical:  We need to consider what we really want for our children / students — and then create policies that support these goals.  So often our practices (in education and families, as well as in businesses & government) actually undermine our real goals… and if we’re not very clear on what we want, it seems very unlikely that we can make it happen.  As the article concludes, we’ve got to ask the right questions about homework (and everything else):

Do we want our children to grow up to be whole, thriving adults who have held onto their innate joy of learning and discovery? Or do we want to teach them it’s only work we value—and not health, family, balance, creativity and fun? We don’t need an academic study to reach the right conclusion on that.

So your homework  assignment:  Discuss with your team, your family, your community:  What are the most important goals for children, and what needs to change to ensure those goals are supported?  What are we doing now that’s undermining the goals?  What can we do instead?

“Mr. Hunter, he’s a brain stretcher.”

“One of the things I learned is that other people matter – one person can’t win, everyone has to win.”

“I hereby declare this world peace game WON” — isn’t it time?

A film by Chris Farina. More at Rosalia Films.

Here are the first 3 – how would it be to put these into action?

1. Accept our children’s emotions and emotional responses

‘That must have been really frustrating’ ‘Wow, you are showing me how angry you feel’ ‘That’s great, I can tell how excited you are’ ‘it can be tough when friends let you down like that.’ ‘You look pretty upset. Something must have happened,’

2. Help them label their emotions.

‘You sound upset’, ‘you look really down’, ‘I’m guessing you’re feeling really sad about that’ ‘You’re looking a bit worried’.  I imagine you must be feeling….’ ‘That must have hurt’

3. Encourage children to talk about their feelings

‘Hey, you sound really fed up about that. Do you want to talk about it?  ‘How did that make you feel?’

I like how she’s recommending a matter-of-fact approach to emotions.  They’re real, they matter… and you have a choice about how you use them.

As you can imagine just from the first 3, actually FOLLOWING these 14 tips takes a lot of emotional intelligence for ourselves as parents… but I’m equally sure that doing so would help kids raise theirs.  The central challenge for me is stepping back and remember that my job as a parent is to create a context for learning together — when I remember that (not often enough!) I’m able to step back from the fireworks and enjoy the show  8-) — and treat emotions as something to talk about and learn from.

Anyway, I recommend checking this out, and then please come back here and share your comments — which tip is most powerful?

http://www.parent4success.com/821/14-tips-for-helping-children-with-emotional-intelligence/

Beyond on going observation and the practical knowledge, formal data collection of classroom relationships can help teachers create a positive classroom culture. Sociograms (see diagram below) do this. They are a teacher-made and teacher friendly way of gaining rich data about the class’s social relationships.

Construction 

To construct a class sociogram, ask each pupil to confidentially list two students to work with on an activity.  The topic does not matter; in most cases the social relationships will be relatively constant regardless of the activity. Make sure they put their own name on the top of the paper.

Write up this data as a chart. Different-sized circles, as in the diagram, give visual impact to these relationships and make it easy to discern the various degrees of popularity. This can be done either on a computer, or by hand tracing. Arrows indicate who is choosing who.

Isolates

One of the alerts a teacher gets from this is that there are both boys and girls – the isolates – who no one has chosen or who have only been chosen by another isolate. While it is wise to have a certain degree of philosophical scepticism in making initial assumptions about isolates, they are a cause for concern.

Isolates can lack the social skills to make friendly overtures to their peers, and because of this inability, they will tend to be unhappy. This unhappiness will not just shut down academic learning, which is serious enough, it could also lead disruptive behaviour or, in a worse-case scenario to self harm or suicide. Thus when the sociogram establishes isolates, it is the teacher’s responsibility to react.

One uncomplicated solution is to attempt to integrate isolates into a group that they have shown interest in. In the girls’ group, top right, an attempt could be made to integrate either Lill or Livie or both in this way. However, such integration requires more than just arbitrarily inserting the islolate in a group. Teacher initiative will be crucial. Perhaps if an isolate is quiet and writes well she could be given the task of being the group’s scribe. This not only gives the girl a purpose, and through that some confidence, it also frees group members from having to take on what they may see as an onerous task and may give them some sense of gratitude to the scribe.

Another way would be to provide for small group activities and set the group number at four and arbitrarily mix in the isolates.  Provided the teacher has set the group dynamics up in such a way that team work is required integration has a real chance of success.

However, the isolate may need careful instruction in social skills – the skills of emotional intelligence.

Girls and boys separation 

Another alert is the clear division between the boys and the girls. Is this is what is wanted? Obviously it is a co-ed school so what does that imply? Is it an example of what Chris Argyris calls the gap between the espoused theory and the theory in action? Is the espoused theory that boys and girls are better off in a school where the genders are mixed? If so this shows that the theory in practice is not so.

If the genders are to be mixed, serious teacher reflection is needed before taking any action. If an instruction was given simply to choose a boy and a girl to work with a worse situation could arise if the decisions were made on a boyfriend/girlfriend basis. Reflection may suggest that in this case the gap between espoused theory and theory in practice is best left as it is, and gender issues and compatibility be addressed somewhere else.

Check out the group dynamics

There are several quite tight groups which may well merit some degree of philosophical scepticism.

Are these groups “cliques” only interested in being exclusive, maintaining boundaries to keep their exclusivity, or worse still being antagonistic toward others?

Who is the go to girl in the classroom? In a sociogram she would have by far the greatest number of arrows seeking her out. Yet beneath the radar her influence could be self serving, her ability to put down others sophisticated.

Graham Nuttal’s research, noted in his The Hidden Lives of Learners book, records the action of such a girl. A boy is having trouble spelling the word Sahara. He asks for her help. She carefully spells the word that subtlety reinforces her elite status.  If that is not bad enough once he has the word she turns on the pressure by saying, “Why couldn’t you have copied it yourself? It’s on the White Board dumb ass!”

Sadly, Nuttal notes, the classroom teacher was unaware of all this.

For this girl it’s all about power, personal power, rather the empathy that holds a classroom together.

On the other hand those who are popular may well be part of a positive group fully integrated into the classroom culture, a catalyst for good. Both inside and outside their group, such individuals would be intent on “making the day” for both themselves and others.  This is not dramatic stuff. Making their day starts with a cheerful “hello” or “good morning” together with a friendly welcoming smile.  Likewise being there for them is more about simple, everyday things than dramatic happenings, for example, providing a pen or pencil when someone has forgotten theirs or the lead has broken.

Teachers should look for these positive behaviours, too, and reinforce them. In a general way a poster on the wall about making their day or being there for them would be a good backup.

Link to Habits of Mind

Teacher monitoring of the verbal interaction between the group, and the body language accompanying it, should occur outside the classroom as well. If there is no smoke, no harm has been done.

If there is the teacher is alerted early to the jockeying for dominance and power that will be the antitheses of being kind and helpful. Then the teacher might give special attention to Habits of Mind such as listening with understanding and empathy, and thinking interdependently to have the students valuing each other, and working in a collegially mutual interdependent way.

A teacher’s job does not start and end with the curriculum. The social side of the classroom is perhaps equally important. The school is the sea. The students are the fish. If the sea is not kept at the right temperature the fish will die! Sociograms won’t necessarily give the teacher the answer, but they will certainly show where to look.

Alan Cooper BEd. BA. Dip Tchg. ANZIM, is a formed teacher and principal, now education consultant specializing in Thinking Skills, Learning Styles, Multiple Intelligences, Habits of Mind, Emotional Learning, Professional Development Portfolios, Organisational Culture.  He is based in New Zealand.

Often we consider needs as hierarchal, but maybe needs are actually cyclical, interlocked, or overlapping.  Some needs are easy to understand, if you go without any fluids for a day, you know the need for water.  But what happens when you go without love, or peace, or self-awareness?  It’s less clear, somehow, but perhaps as compelling?

I think we’ve found a way, and I hope you’ll test it out and let us know how to make it even better – you can get see some of the videos on the site, and get a free trial for more!

“FreedmanTV” is an interactive online channel about using emotional intelligence to get better results in business and life. It’s made of many short videos answering questions.  I suspect it will work because it has 3 key ingredients…

Bite sized:  The clips are 2-4 minutes, each on a specific question.

You drive:  The system automatically suggests new videos based on what you type and what you ask — so you “create your own adventure,” making a dynamic learning experience.

We connect:  The producers have made near-broadcast quality video — so while we might not be able to be in the room together, at least there is an immediacy and subtlety to the medium.   Plus, you can type questions and interact right there in the online community and I can respond in text or in a new video.

I’m uncomfortable being “self promotional” and so I’ll stop there — but I do hope you’ll check it out and let us know!

Here is a video answering the question, “What is Leadership?”  My answer is based on our Vital Signs Model:

The "Wood Block Room" at Synapse School

Intriguing article in the Wall Street Journal: Educating the Next Steve Jobs — points out that a narrowly defined pathway to “success” where failure is anathema is the recipe for conformity, not innovation.

In most high-school and college classes, failure is penalized. But without trial and error, there is no innovation. Amanda Alonzo, a 32-year-old teacher at Lynbrook High School in San Jose, Calif., who has mentored two Intel Science Prize finalists and 10 semifinalists in the last two years—more than any other public school science teacher in the U.S.—told me, “One of the most important things I have to teach my students is that when you fail, you are learning.” Students gain lasting self-confidence not by being protected from failure but by learning that they can survive it.

In a related recent post, Massimiliano Ghini (our Director of Global Strategy), wrote about the challenge of a climate for innovation in business:  ”We all know that the key to increase our competitiveness is innovation, but in the current reality of increased pressure and failure, change fails and innovation falls behind.  How can we unblock the creative thinking in this scenario?”  Max is identifying a very similar challenge as the conformist school dichotomy:

When we create a “pressure cooker” climate, we don’t get innovation… yet at the same time we have an urgent pressure to generate results.

How do we balance these two?  We get so caught in “rules” and “SOPs” and a kind of contratual approach that the sense of wonder and spontaneity shrivels.  One way to sustain innovation to shift our understanding of “work” and stop treating it as a negative, unpleasant experience.  What if a kids at school, or teammembers at work, can’t actually tell the difference between “work” and “play”?

One of my favorite aspects of Six Seconds’ Synapse School is the sense of wonder and creativity you experience just walking in the door.  Recently I heard a child visitor tell her parents how she wished she could go school in a place that was so full of energy.  While there are classes, and while there’s “work” happening, the whole place is bursting with the energy of play.  While there is a robust structure and a clear focus, there is also a kind of “joyful anarchy” that is palpable.

At Synapse, there’s a room near the entrance which is full of “Kapla” blocks: simple, flexible, flat, wooden rectangles pictured above.  There’s a kind of constant evolution in the room, and I’m amazed every time I see what the kids are creating.  This is the spirit I’d love to see in every place of work and learning.  A place of contribution and shared creation bound by care, not by compliance.  I asked one boy, around 9 years old, “What happens when you run out of blocks, do you have rules about which buildings you take apart?”  He looked surprised, and answered:  ”No, we just respect one another’s work.”

During presentations, we often unwittingly behave in ways that make us unlikable. Some presenters subtly manifest annoyance if someone asks an adversarial question; others slip into veiled sarcasm with an audience member they may not like; a few may inadvertently seem to ridicule someone who makes what they consider to be a vacuous point. Those on the receiving end perceive these emotional signals we are transmitting even if they are subtle. The messages clearly announce to the audience members involved that we don’t like them and they become receptors of our negativity towards them. A presenter who is emotionally intelligent learns to control this emotional leakage. While this is the decent thing to do, it is also a smart thing to do: In an interview on Management Consulting News, Robert Cialdini, author of Influence: Science and Practice, states that “People can tell when you like them. And everything changes in the hands of somebody who likes me. Maybe I believe an insurance agent or a stockbroker is a real expert. Well, expertise may not be enough. I want an expert who likes me and then I’ve got both sides covered.” We are more likely to protect the interests of those we like, which boosts our trustworthiness and credibility.

As a presenter, then, being likable is as important as being knowledgeable about your topic. Keep in mind the 15/85 percent rule of presentations: 15 percent of your presentation’s success is based on your formal education, background, and knowledge. The other 85 percent is based on who you are rather than what you know. As Keld Widinberg Jensen (nominated best speaker in Scandinavia) put it: “The main reason you will be successful is whether people will trust you and believe in you…whether they will find you credible and likable.”

How can you boost your likeability as a presenter? Here are 12 pointers:

• Respect the listeners’ intelligence by not lecturing to them.
• Use “we” or “us” when referring to groups.
• Show genuine friendliness to the audience. The simplest way to do this is to smile and to use people’s names.
• Disclose some personal information. This makes you approachable and more familiar and natural to the audience.
• Be confident without being arrogant. A little humility is attractive and makes us likable.
• Allow people to save face, that is, to maintain their dignity. Even if you don’t agree with an audience member, don’t use defiant contradiction.
• Be authentic. If you don’t know something, admit it. Readily acknowledge a potential error or an uncertainty.
• Practice small courtesies such as thanking an audience member for asking a question or making an observation.
• Use a conversational tone and less technical jargon.
• Don’t take up all the oxygen in the room. Listen attentively and give audience contributors their moment — turn the limelight on them.
• Take a likeability test to discover the positive and negative feelings that you produce in others. Self-awareness precedes self-management.
• Observe someone you consider likeable and try to dissect what makes them likeable, whether online or in person.

In the words of Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, “If you could master one element of personal communications that is more powerful than anything… it is the quality of being likable…. If your audience likes you, they’ll forgive just about everything else you do wrong.”

Copyright © 2012 by Bruna Martinuzzi. All Rights Reserved.
This article is adapted from Bruna Martinuzzi’s book: Presenting with Credibility: Practical Tools and Techniques for Effective Presentations, available for purchase in the Six Seconds EQ Store.