Reports -Download option
Emotional Intelligence in the HR Sector
This paper analyses data on individuals working in the Human Resources (HR) sector* who completed the Emotional Intelligence Proﬁle (EIP), an online self-report questionnaire, from 2007-15.
The results show the HR sector to be somewhat higher in Emotional Intelligence (EI) than most other job sectors; in particular they score strongly on interpersonal aspects of EI such as valuing others, empathy, and connecting with others. However, alongside this strength is a tendency for this sector to be more submissive or benevolent, have lower self-confidence, be less assertive and over-trusting. This may impact on the HR sector’s capacity for progressing to senior leadership roles that expand their strategic influence within organisations. For example, research shows that the HR sector has a strong appreciation for the benefit that EI can bring to organisations (90% respondents), yet has had far less success at including EI within their organisations’ development programmes (30% respondents).
Since a peak in 2012, the HR sector’s EI scores have dropped significantly. This is a worrying trend that may indicate lowering morale and engagement, which may be the result of substantial changes and size reduction for HR departments in recent years. It may be seen as incumbent upon HR professionals to practice what they preach and to demonstrate the highest standards of EI in their own personal development. If the HR sector is to become consistently strong and less susceptible to the ups and downs of organisational change, it must not only be good at the softer interpersonal aspects, but also the harder self-management components of Emotional Intelligence. Jo Maddocks R&D Director, JCA
A decade of Emotional Intelligence
This paper examines the trends and implications of data from 12,417 working individuals who have completed the EIP (Emotional Intelligence Profile)between 2001 and 2010.
Are leaders more emotionally intelligent?
- What distinguishes senior leaders (Directors and Senior Managers) from other job levels is their self-belief, in particular their Emotional Resilience, Goal Directedness, Personal Power, Positive Outlook and their capacity to manage conflict and act independently when required.
- Overall, higher level job-holders (across six job levels) score higher on nearly all aspects of EI.
- The results suggest that for Senior Managers to progress to Director level they may need to develop their Self Management (Self Awareness, Personal Power, Goal Directedness and Balanced Outlook). For Middle Managers to progress to Senior Manager level, they may need to develop aspects of Tough Mindedness (Emotional Resilience, Goal Directedness, Balanced Outlook, Conflict Handling and Interdependence).
- Managerial groups score noticeably higher in EI than Non-Managerialgroups. This may suggest that development training should be made available to Non-Managerial groups as well as Managers.
Emotional Intelligence of the financial sector
This paper analyses data on individuals working in the financial sector* who completed the Emotional Intelligence Profile (EIP), an online self-report questionnaire, from 2004-14.
The results show the financial sector to be generally lower in EI than several other job sectors, in particular on interpersonal aspects of EI such as being more critical, less flexible and less people oriented. However, this has broadly improved over the last 10 years, and the financial sector has developed certain strengths such as being pragmatic and task focused, and leaders who demonstrate selfbelief, authenticity and consistency. This paper also shows that EI can be sustainably developed in this sector through appropriate training, which has significant impact on the emotional climate of the organisation in terms of employee performance, engagement and well-being.
Gallup Report on Employee Engagement
Day in and day out, managers are tasked with engaging employees, but 51% of managers have essentially “checked out,” meaning they care little, if at all, about their job and company. And that attitude has dire consequences. A manager’s engagement — or lack thereof — affects his or her employees’ engagement, creating what Gallup calls the “cascade effect.” Essentially, employees’ engagement is directly influenced by their managers’ engagement — whose engagement is directly influenced by theirmanagers’ engagement.
Gallup has studied engagement data from 190 diverse industries and has found that managers who are directly supervised by highly engaged leadership teams are 39% more likely to be engaged than managers who are supervised by actively disengaged leadership teams. And the link between engaged managers and engaged employees is even more powerful. Employees who are supervised by highly engaged managers are 59% more likely to be engaged than those supervised by actively disengaged managers.
Why leadership-development programs fail
For years, organizations have lavished time and money on improving the capabilities of managers and on nurturing new leaders. US companies alone spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development. Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership-development offerings from a top business school can reach $150,000 a person.
Moreover, when upward of 500 executives were asked to rank their top three human-capital priorities, leadership development was included as both a current and a future priority. Almost two-thirds of the respondents identified leadership development as their number-one concern. Only 7 percent of senior managers polled by a UK business school think that their companies develop global leaders effectively, and around 30 percent of US companies admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities.
We’ve talked with hundreds of chief executives about the struggle, observing both successful initiatives and ones that run into the sand. In the process, we’ve identified four of the most common mistakes. Here we explain some tips to overcome them. Together, they suggest ways for companies to get more from their leadership-development efforts—and ultimately their leaders—as these organizations face challenges ranging from the next demanding phase of globalization to disruptive technological change and continued macroeconomic uncertainty.