The operative principle in connecting, understanding, and sharing is the giving of self; that is, putting others first. Good leaders give of themselves because they have something to give; their sense of self both in terms of confidence as well as ability is big enough to share. And it is ultimately in the sharing that a leader makes the connection. Examples of such sharing can be found in thousands of diaries and letters penned by British troops during World War I. These writings contain countless stories of officers in the trenches going from soldier to soldier prior to a climb “over the top” into No Man’s Land. This connection made soldier to soldier, man to man, was genuine, and often the last measure for both
since such attacks incurred such fearsome casualty figures.11
Emotional intelligence in itself does not make for enlightened leadership. Some managers who relate well to others may lack the resolve to lead others. They may be unwilling to make tough deci- sions about people, such as promotions, job transfers, or even ter- minations, for fear of hurting others’ feelings. These sentiments are admirable human qualities but may be harmful to leaders who
must make hard decisions on issues like facility relocations and layoffs. Furthermore, in times of crisis, organizations demand a strong hand on the tiller; they need the leader who can look over the choppy seas and see land. Crisis leadership demands people of strong constitution and strong will. They are not autocrats who rule by fiat and fear; they are managers who lead by values, prin- ciples, and personal example.
Emotional intelligence is the human face of leadership, and it is especially critical to those who are leading up. That humanity makes it possible for leaders to connect with subordinates and su- periors alike. Emotional intelligence can create a sense of inspired leadership, the kind that will make people want to go the extra mile because it is good for them, their leader, and their organization.
Compromise
A strong sense of self can open the doors to understanding alternate points of view. So often news coming from Washington these days reflects the discord of politicians who seem to hold tighter to their ideology than they do to constituent concerns. Civility and collab- oration among political adversaries greased the wheels of the U.S. political process for much of the twentieth century. No longer. Given the polarity of the U.S. electorate, compromise has come to be equated with selling out. Comity between adversaries has gone by the wayside. By contrast, business demonstrates in many ways how to prosper through compromise. In a free market society, con- ceiving, developing, and delivering a product or service is filled with hundreds of compromises that balance the needs of the consumer to obtain value with the needs of the producer to make a profit.
Compromise is not a betrayal of values; it is an agreement over a position where both sides come away with something to their liking. Not every compromise is a good one. General Motors’ com- promise with its unions over health and pensions has resulted in legacy costs of at least $1,400 per vehicle; that was a contributing
factor to GM’s financial collapse that required the intervention of the federal government and bankruptcy to save it. On the other hand, compromise between oil producers and the environmental- ists has resulted in the implementation of drilling methods that are more ecologically compatible as well as the creation and preservation of natural habitats.
Compromise ensures the common interest. As such it is a valu- able practice for managers who seek to lead up to learn and imple- ment. Why? Because compromise is a means by which the talent and skills of a diverse team can be harnessed for the completion of a project. Compromise ensures that people participate, and their collaboration overcomes not only inertia but also resistance. Here are some ways to encourage compromise.
IN S I S T O N CO L L A B O R AT I O N
Reflect for a moment on your most positive team experience. It may be something that occurred in high school athletics, or you may be experiencing it right now in your workplace. If you con- sider why the team succeeded, it is due not simply to the individ- ual proficiencies of teammates, but it was everyone’s ability to meld together, not always as friends, but as collaborators who re- spect one another’s talents and abilities. That’s teamwork, and in a larger picture it is the collaboration of individuals for the greater good, e.g., producing intended results in the form of winning games or winning in the marketplace. How can managers insist on collaboration? The first way is through example. Make it known that you are willing to share the hardships, be it longer hours or more difficult assignments. A second way is through open and honest communications. Set clear expectations and be available to listen and learn from others on the team.
LE V E R A G E DI S S E N T
The job of employees is not to agree with the boss 100 percent of the time. Employees should feel free to offer alternate points of
view about how the work is done or about the intended results. At the same time, managers have a right to expect that the work will be done on time and on budget. Managers may also insist on ad- herence to standards of quality and practice and exact discipline when those metrics are not met. But within that framework there is room for dissent. Creative tension over ideas provokes good thinking and rigorous analysis. The development of marketing campaigns resembles a laboratory for collaborative thinking. Product offering and research are combined with lots of clever minds to develop strategies and creative solutions that make the offering desirable, accessible, and available to the consumer, be it a company or an individual. Managers can encourage dissent through the process of appreciative inquiry — that is, the asking of questions designed to elicit different ideas as well as affirm rights of people who want to ask questions.
SE E K CO M I T Y
One of the reasons people shy away from compromise is because they feel it is not worth jeopardizing team harmony. True to a de- gree, perhaps, but team unity is threatened more seriously by fail- ure to compromise. When individuals on a team are competing among themselves to deliver on a project, it is psychologically wearing. As mentioned above, creative tension can be a positive, but emotional tension erodes comity and provokes disagreements and disputes that are directed at personalities rather than projects. It therefore falls to the manager to assuage egos and soothe hard feelings. Compromises where parties share in the process as well as the rewards will make the workplace more harmonious. Some- times gratification will be deferred. Surrender on one point may not deliver a personal gain, but it will demonstrate that the individ- ual has the strength of character to be a good team player. Such recognition may be the most valuable outcome of compromise.