This is a presentation i prepared for a small one hour training at my office.

1. 1

2. • Dr
Daniel
Goleman
first
brought
the
term
“emo5onal
intelligence”
to
a
wide
audience
with
his
1995
book.
• Example:
A
highly
intelligent,
highly
skilled
execu5ve
who
was
promoted
into
a
leadership
posi5on
only
to
fail
at
the
job.
And
also
someone
with
solid—but
not
extraordinary—intellectual
abili5es
and
technical
skills
who
was
promoted
into
a
similar
posi5on
and
then
soared.
2

3. 3

4. 4

5. • People
who
have
a
high
degree
of
self-­‐awareness
recognize
how
their
feelings
affect
them,
other
people,
and
their
job
performance
• Thus,
a
self-­‐aware
person
who
knows
that
5ght
deadlines
bring
out
the
worst
in
him
plans
his
5me
carefully
and
gets
his
work
done
well
in
advance.
Another
person
with
high
self-­‐awareness
will
be
able
to
work
with
a
demanding
client.
She
will
understand
the
clientʼs
impact
on
her
moods
and
the
deeper
reasons
for
her
frustra5on.
• for
example,
he
will
be
able
to
be
firm
in
turning
down
a
job
offer
that
is
temp5ng
financially
but
does
not
fit
with
his
principles
or
long-­‐term
goals
• For
instance,
one
manager
I
know
of
was
skep5cal
about
a
new
service
that
her
company,
was
about
to
introduce.
Without
promp5ng
from
her
team
or
her
boss,
she
offered
them
an
explana5on:
“Itʼs
hard
for
me
to
get
behind
the
rollout
of
this
service,”
she
admiUed,
“because
I
really
wanted
to
run
the
project,
but
I
wasn't
selected.
Bear
with
me
while
I
deal
with
that.”
The
manager
did
indeed
examine
her
feelings;
a
week
later,
she
was
suppor5ng
the
project
fully.
5

6. Self-­‐awareness
can
also
be
iden5fied
during
performance
reviews.
Self-­‐aware
people
know—and
are
comfortable
talking
about—their
limita5ons
and
strengths,
and
they
oYen
demonstrate
a
thirst
for
construc5ve
cri5cism.
By
contrast,
people
with
low
self-­‐awareness
interpret
the
message
that
they
need
to
improve
as
a
threat
or
a
sign
of
failure.
6

7. In
general,
Sofia
had
a
low
level
of
self-­‐awareness:
She
was
rarely
able
to
pinpoint
why
she
was
struggling
at
work
and
at
home.
All
she
could
say
was,
“Nothing
is
working
right.”
7

8. 8

9. 9

10. • Biological
impulses
drive
our
emo5ons.
We
cannot
do
away
with
them—but
we
can
do
much
to
manage
them.
• We
have
two
minds
that
operate
in
5ght
harmony.
But
when
passion
surges,
emo5onal
mind
captures
the
upper
hand
swapping
the
ra5onal
mind.
• Self
Regula5on
is
the
component
of
emo5onal
intelligence
that
frees
us
from
being
prisoners
of
our
feelings
• It
isn't
great
in
situa5ons
where
thinking
is
an
asset.
The
problem
is
that
our
bodies
respond
to
any
perceived
threat
—
say,
a
cri5cal
comment
from
a
colleague
or
a
boss
—
by
fueling
the
fight
or
flight
response.
We
lose
our
capacity
for
ra5onality
and
reflec5veness,
and
we
mostly
don't
realize
we've
lost
it.
The
changes
in
behavior
in
different
emo4onal
condi4ons
1. With
anger,
blood
flows
to
the
hands
to
grasp
a
weapon
and
aUack
a
foe,
heart
rate
increases
and
a
rush
of
hormone
generates
a
pulse
of
energy
strong
enough
for
a
vigorous
ac5on
2. with
fear
blood
goes
to
the
large
skeleton
muscles
such
as
legs
making
it
easier
to
flee.
3. In
happiness
there
is
increased
ac5vity
in
brain
center
that
inhibits
nega5ve
10

11. • Imagine
an
execu5ve
who
has
just
watched
a
team
of
his
employees
present
a
botched
analysis
to
the
companyʼs
board
of
directors.
In
the
gloom
that
follows,
the
execu5ve
might
find
himself
tempted
to
pound
on
the
table
in
anger
or
kick
over
a
chair.
He
could
leap
up
and
scream
at
the
group.
Or
he
might
maintain
a
grim
silence,
glaring
at
everyone
before
stalking
off.
But
if
he
had
a
giY
for
self-­‐regula5on,
he
would
choose
a
different
approach.
He
would
pick
his
words
carefully,
acknowledging
the
teamʼs
poor
performance
without
rushing
to
any
hasty
judgment.
He
would
then
step
back
to
consider
the
reasons
for
the
failure.
Are
they
personal—a
lack
of
effort?
Are
there
any
mi5ga5ng
factors?
What
was
his
role
in
the
debacle?
AYer
considering
these
ques5ons,
he
would
call
the
team
together,
lay
out
the
incidentʼs
consequences,
and
offer
his
feelings
about
it.
He
would
then
present
his
analysis
of
the
problem
and
a
well-­‐considered
solu5on.
• Consider
the
case
of
a
manager
at
a
large
manufacturing
company.
Like
her
colleagues,
she
had
used
a
certain
soYware
program
for
five
years.
The
program
drove
how
she
collected
and
reported
data
and
how
she
thought
about
the
companyʼs
strategy.
One
day,
senior
execu5ves
announced
that
a
new
program
was
to
be
installed
that
would
radically
change
how
informa5on
was
gathered
and
assessed
within
the
organiza5on.
While
many
people
in
the
company
complained
biUerly
about
how
disrup5ve
the
change
would
be,
the
manager
mulled
over
the
reasons
for
the
new
program
and
was
convinced
of
its
poten5al
to
improve
11

12. According
to
the
research
done
by
Dr.
Daniel
Goleman
himself,
extreme
displays
of
nega5ve
emo5on
have
never
emerged
as
a
driver
of
good
leadership.
12

13. 13

14. • Leaders
are
driven
to
achieve
beyond
expecta5ons
—their
own
and
everyone
elseʼs.
• Plenty
of
people
are
mo5vated
by
external
factors,
such
as
a
big
salary
or
the
status
that
comes
from
having
an
impressive
5tle
or
being
part
of
a
pres5gious
company.
By
contrast,
those
with
leadership
poten5al
are
mo5vated
by
a
deeply
embedded
desire
to
achieve
for
the
sake
of
achievement
14

15. 15

16. • It
doesn’t
mean
adop5ng
other
people’s
emo5ons
as
one’s
own
and
trying
to
please
every
body
• Consider
the
challenge
of
leading
a
team.
As
anyone
who
has
ever
been
a
part
of
one
can
aUest,
teams
are
cauldrons
of
bubbling
emo5ons.
They
are
oYen
charged
with
reaching
a
consensus—which
is
hard
enough
with
two
people
and
much
more
difficult
as
the
numbers
increase.
Even
in
groups
with
as
few
as
four
or
five
members,
alliances
form
and
clashing
agendas
get
set.
A
teamʼs
leader
must
be
able
to
sense
and
understand
the
viewpoints
of
everyone
around
the
table.
16

17. 17

18. 1. Socially
skilled
people
tend
to
have
a
wide
circle
of
acquaintances,
and
they
have
a
knack
for
finding
common
ground
with
people
of
all
kinds—a
knack
for
building
rapport.
2. Consider
what
happened
some5mes
back
at
an
experimental
division
of
the
BBC,
the
Bri5sh
media
giant.
Even
though
the
groupʼs
200
or
so
journalists
and
editors
had
given
their
best
effort,
management
decided
to
close
the
division.
The
shutdown
itself
was
bad
enough,
but
the
brusque,
conten5ous
mood
and
manner
of
the
execu5ve
sent
to
deliver
the
news
to
the
assembled
staff
incited
something
beyond
the
expected
frustra5on.
People
became
enraged—at
both
the
decision
and
the
bearer
of
the
news.
The
execu5veʼs
cranky
mood
and
delivery
created
an
atmosphere
so
threatening
that
he
had
to
call
security
to
be
ushered
from
the
room.
The
next
day,
another
execu5ve
visited
the
same
staff.
His
mood
was
somber
and
respeciul,
as
was
his
behavior.
He
spoke
about
the
importance
of
journalism
to
the
vibrancy
of
a
society
and
of
the
calling
that
had
drawn
them
all
to
the
field
in
the
first
place.
He
reminded
them
that
no
one
goes
into
journalism
to
get
rich—as
a
profession
its
finances
have
always
been
marginal,
job
security
ebbing
and
flowing
with
the
larger
economic
5des.
He
recalled
a
5me
in
his
own
career
when
he
had
been
let
go
18

19. 19

20. 20