An article by Roy Howells first published in The Training Journal June 2003

A recent report commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) drew attention to the adverse effects that large-scale change programmes can have on public sector employees and their attitudes to work. Irrespective of sector, change can take a lot of coping with, and it would take a supreme optimist to expect staff to agree wholeheartedly whenever a new way of doing things is proposed.

THE PEOPLE ‘E’s

The CIPD/CMPS-sponsored booklet ‘Developing Public Services’, produced by The Development Partnership, draws on case-study research into the transformation of six public sector organisations. In each instance, it is argued that the change has been successful, and the report identifies common features. In the 6 March 2003 issue of People Management magazine, a feature piece entitled ‘Three point turn’ by Lindsay Beaton and David Vere of The Development Partnership reported that each organisation had achieved ‘a real focus on results’ and had ‘successfully released the latent capabilities of their people’. Leadership activities such as ‘listening’ and ‘recognising and rewarding success’, combined with qualities such as ‘flexibility’ and ‘opportunism’ helped senior managers both to empower people and to seize chances of pursuing their own agendas for improving delivery. Beaton and Vere conclude: ‘Instead of focusing on the three “resource Es” – economy, efficiency and effectiveness – we need to start considering how to energise, enable and empower employees. It is these “people Es” that make a difference to the quality of public services.’ As elsewhere, the managerial environment in public services has changed significantly in recent years. Traditional ‘transactional’ leadership:

• derives its power from position
• is preoccupied with short-term goals
• is conservative with regard to how work is undertaken, and
• subjugates all to getting the job done.

This style of leadership has proved to be highly effective in specific situations – generally speaking, when an organisation is in serious trouble and requires clear direction for the short term. Beyond emergency and consolidation, however, transactional leadership has serious limitations, not least because the short-termism and conservatism that characterise it tend to inhibit the innovation and change required to ensure its continued relevance.

Accordingly, ‘transformational’ leadership1 is increasingly seen as the more productive model. Unlike transactional leadership, the transformational approach places people and their potential, needs and values at the centre of organisational concerns. As with transactional leadership, this approach is goalorientated, but is concerned with the long term and is interested in structures and systems only as means through which people can achieve, rather than as ends in themselves.

Research, including that commissioned by CIPD and CMPS, suggests that this style is far better suited to most business contingencies, although it brings with it unique demands. Empowered employees, used to the freedom to innovate and shape the business, cannot be expected simply to jump into line when a manager speaks. Rather, leaders must anticipate making a case for any changes they are looking for and sometimes pursue an unpopular line without adversely affecting the whole enterprise. In my opinion, such a task requires of leaders and managers a fourth ‘E’ – Emotional Intelligence (EI).

THE FOURTH ‘E’

EI recognises that no social interaction takes place in a vacuum. Rather, we all operate in a culture that is shaped by our environment, our respective personalities and conditioning, and any shared history.

The more we are able to take these factors into account, the better we are able to navigate social interactions – initiating and sustaining relationships that are built on understanding and sufficiently robust to survive disagreement.

However, it is common for us to fall into the trap of trying to persuade others by offering them what we find attractive, rather than giving any thought to what they find attractive. In the event that they don’t respond in the desired way, we then offer even more of what we know they don’t want, when what is required is for us to shift tack. Without understanding of the other person, shifting tack dooms us to casting around and hoping we get lucky. In the worst cases, a cycle is established whereby the person I am trying to influence, prey to their own personality traits and conditioning, will observe my behaviour and come to a negative conclusion about me, which is then reflected in their behaviour. If I have any sensitivity at all, I will notice this and the chances are I will get stressed, which is unlikely to help. And so a destructive pattern is established that will almost certainly not support my intentions, and will be hard to break.

On the other hand, the Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) technique of ‘match/pace/lead’ has it that influencing others first requires us to understand their world, indicate that we see ‘how it is for them’ and then lead them to where we want them to go. It is a process that encourages openness and trust, and opens the door to a cycle of ‘positive affirmation’. But how do we get to see ‘how it is for them’? How do we get beyond simply ‘casting about’? EI offers a way in.

For the last four years I have led a CMPS training programme – ‘Emotional Intelligence for Senior Managers’. The purpose of the programme is to give managers an insight into how they are perceived by others, some practical experience of how their attitudes and behaviour affect their interactions with others, and some ideas as to how they can manage their behaviour to achieve better results. To begin this process, we use two sets of questionnaires, the answers to which provide participants with a picture of themselves through their own and others’ eyes.

Emotional Competence Inventory

The Hay McBer Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is completed by participating managers and their bosses, peers and those who report to them. Until it was recently redesigned, questions concerned each participant’s performance under four broad headings:

• self-awareness
• social awareness
• self-management, and
• social skills.

Team Management Profile

Participants also complete the Margerison-McCann Team Management Profile (TMP), a self-assessment exercise on management style. TMP scores people on four scales based on whether they:

• exhibit introverted or extroverted behaviour
• prefer practical or creative information gathering
• are analytical or beliefs-based in their decision making, or
• prefer to be flexible or structured in the way they go about their work.

Depending on how participants complete the questionnaire, they are positioned in one of eight management roles on the Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel – as shown in Table 1 (see page 19). Ideally, the results of the two questionnaires stimulate participants to consider how the way they do things influences the quality of their relationships.

MAKING THE LINK

As the programme became established and I had the opportunity to observe participants, it crossed my mind that there might be a link between:

• strengths or weaknesses in certain EQ competencies, and
• preferences as measured by TMP.

In short, I wanted to see whether certain personality types were scored to be more emotionally intelligent than others and, with this in mind, I analysed the results of both sets of the questionnaires4 filled in by the 180 participants who had completed the programmes at that point.

Having worked with the TMP for more than 12 years, I had certain expectations about which roles would stand up well against the ECI, and there were few surprises. Broadly, the results suggested that those managers who scored themselves as extrovert, flexible and who said they based decisions more on belief than analysis, were rated as the more emotionally intelligent by others. It should be remembered that the ECI scores on EI represent the subjective opinions of those who provided feedback, and while this might not satisfy the more analytically minded, this strikes me as an appropriate way of measuring capabilities in this area.

Table 1: The eight management roles on the Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel

• Reporter/Adviser - Enjoys giving and gathering information.
• Creator/Innovator - Likes to come up with ideas and different ways of approaching tasks.
• Explorer/Promoter - Enjoys exploring possibilities and looking for new opportunities.
• Assessor/Developer - Prefers working where alternatives can be analysed and ideas developed to meet the practical constraints of the organisation.
• Thruster/Organiser - likes to thrust forward and get results.
• Concluder/Producer - Prefers working in a systematic way to produce work outputs.
• Controller/Inspector - Enjoys focusing on the detailed and controlling aspects of work.
• Upholder/Maintainer - Likes to uphold standards and values and maintain team excellence.

Reproduced by kind permission of TMS Development International Ltd, 2003.

SPEAK UP

Some of the qualities of introversion, and particularly a preference for gathering and processing information prior to acting or speaking, are crucial to understanding the perspective of others. Listening is essentially an introverted activity. Unfortunately, introversion is, by its nature, undemonstrative, and building empathy (and being recognised for it) requires us to be more demonstrative. Others can only appreciate what they can see or hear, and sadly it is possible for one to have great empathy with others but not to communicate it, thus not being credited for an important quality.

Clearly, perception is king when it comes to whether or not we are accorded social skills, which are the cornerstone of EI in the view of Daniel Goleman, upon whose work the ECI was based. If you never tell anyone what you see, think or feel, they will never know just how empathetic you are. If the first lesson is to listen, then the second is to speak up.

The research also underlines the value of engaging with people at a beliefs level rather than an analytical one, and to be flexible rather than structured. Talk about what is important to you, ask others what is important to them, and be prepared to go where the interaction needs to go rather than to have a set plan.

It seems that interacting on a personal level and being prepared to change position pays off in relationship terms. Once rapport has been developed, you are well placed to introduce your agenda, although it is still important for you to sell it according to the disposition of whoever you are talking to.

The other broad value of this information is that, in a world where time is at a premium, relationshipbuilding can be considered by some to be something of a luxury. Any insight into how other people like to operate, then, can save time and smooth the passage when it comes to rapport building.

By way of example, testing has revealed me to be an Explorer/Promoter personality type, which suggests that I enjoy exploring possibilities and looking for new opportunities, and am extroverted and creative (see Table 1). I think this is pretty accurate, consistent with my line of work, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. However, if I need to sell my thinking to a personality type that is more concerned with detail, let’s say a Controller/Inspector, I could find myself in trouble if I don’t bring some insight with me. Without insight, I am doomed to sell my idea on the grounds that it appeals to me. This is likely to alienate the Controller/Inspector, who will quite probably dismiss me for having my head in the clouds, while I, no doubt, will slink off grumbling about the other being an ‘anorak’.

That said, armed with the knowledge that Controller/Inspectors are, by nature, introverted and practical, I have something with which to make a start. Rather than noisily presenting my grand plan, I can ask questions, listen carefully and summarise before pitching my ideas in a detailed and down-toearth way when the time is right. The Controller/Inspector might not agree with what I say, but with sufficient rapport s/he may be inclined to credit me for acting in good faith, even if s/he goes along with my thinking reluctantly. If we can disagree without breaking trust, then I have got past ‘No’.

As my research suggests, some people are predisposed to behave in these ways anyway, and for them the challenge is to raise what they do from an unconscious to a conscious level, thus providing options with regard to how they relate to others. For those less inclined to behave in these ways, the good news is that these skills can be learned. Most styles of interpersonal skills training will touch upon the issues we’ve been discussing, whether or not they make direct reference to EI. As a trainer looking to provide people with insight into how their attitudes and behaviour affect their relationships you will, in all likelihood, need to do some rapport building of your own before your thinking will receive the kind of attention you want. As the manager in the workplace must take into account the preferences and worldviews of others, so you will benefit from doing your homework.

While there is a strong chance you will have a range of differing personalities to deal with at any one time, you may also find that groups of specialists in a particular discipline or area of business display similar preferences. The more emotionally intelligent the individuals, the more easily the group dynamic process will unfold. The more effective and aware people are in their team role, the more likely it is that the group will evolve in a constructive way. Again, the Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel can help. If you are dealing with auditors, you might expect to find a higher-than-average proportion of Controller/Inspectors, for example.

In most cases, people will undertake interpersonal skills training of their own volition, although this is not always the case. Whatever people’s reasons for being in the room with you, they will all have expectations – some reasonable and some not – about what you have planned for them. Dropping people into a new environment causes insecurity, with quite common issues around whether they will fit in. This can tip over into cynicism, among other reactions, which can take some working through. To this end, I have found the Bennis/Shepherd model of group development to be useful.5 The model identifies five stages to group development, each of which has distinct characteristics in terms of group dynamics.

The initial stage of dependency typically sees members looking for leadership, structure and goals. Dominant personalities tend to go unchallenged at this point, and there is a strong likelihood that the group (as well as the people who comprise it) will feel insecure. Frustration is common.

The counter-dependency stage is likely to see more overt expressions of concern regarding leadership, membership and authority, and the group claiming some authority for itself. There may well be conflict, and attacking the trainer/facilitator can give the group its first common purpose.

The third stage – working resolution – is typified by increased tolerance, trust and sharing, having worked through conflict. People are generally clearer now about purpose, roles and methods, and demonstrate greater sensitivity and awareness.

Cohesion sees high morale, an established culture that can sustain conflict and address uncomfortable issues, and a willingness to experiment (all of which have been identified as benefits of a transformational approach to leadership).

In well-established groups, termination is likely to bring with it regression to some of the characteristics of earlier phases, as well as feelings characteristic of grief such as low energy and a sense of loss.

Getting a group towards the cohesion stage as soon as possible, and thus maximising your impact as a trainer or facilitator, will depend heavily on your rapport-building skills. However, as many interpersonal skills courses are very short, your group may not get much beyond the dependency stage. This makes it all the more important for you to:

• build early rapport
• promote an atmosphere that values difference, and
• make sure that, if only in some small way, you as a trainer remain a transformational leader of the group.

With this in mind, time spent considering potential learning preferences is always a good investment – a range of personalities will almost certainly mean a range of learning preferences, so mixing media is a good idea. Needless to say, it is impossible to match precisely what you have on offer, but a willingness to flex on your part will help engender a similar willingness from the people in your group.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that trainers and facilitators have a pivotal role to play in creating more effective organisations. The better you are able to model the kinds of behaviours that people will find effective at work, the better they will stick. I have found using the ECI and TMP together to be immensely useful over the past few years, and I recommend them to you. As a trainer, however, you will find the greatest return from developing an acute awareness of your own emotional strengths and role preferences, and how they influence your relationships when the going gets tough. At this point EI ceases to be a score on a psychometric test and, instead, becomes your lifeboat.

Reference

1. Beverley Alimo-Metcalfe and Robert Alban- Metcalfe, ‘A new approach to assessing transformational leadership’, Selection and Development Review, vol 16, no. 5, October 2000.
2. Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, 1998.
3. Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, The New Leaders, Little, Brown & Co Ltd, 2002.
4. Roy Howells, ‘Emotional Intelligence and Teamroles’, Team Management Systems, Research Manual Third Edition, 2003.
5. Warren G Bennis and Herbert A Shepard, ‘A theory of group development’, Journal of Human Relations, vol 9, no. 4, 1956.