Up to this point, Goleman stresses the importance of mindfulness (being attentive, open, and curious to one's surroundings) and empathetic. In chapter 8, Goleman addresses the difficulty of adopting new leadership skills for long lasting implementation. Due to the limbic system being more primal, as well as emotionally driven, trying to override bad habits and stressful reactions to contextual developments require extensive practice as well as intensive self-regulation. Much of an individual's reactions are due to years of exposure to others, as well as autonomic use.
The chapter does make simple inferences to creating personal development goals. This self-directed expectation can be quite difficult. Many of the examples within the chapter point to leaders using trained executive coaches to help develop goals of incorporating self-regulation and repetitive implementation of empathetic processes. The key is to eventually override the engrained habitual reactions to a stress-inducing environment. With coaching help, the goals that develop for this have to be a personal process/motivation, as well as a 'step-by-step' feasibility of progress, for example: Try to listen and let others speak; rationalize objectivity; and ask earnest and clarifying questions.
The goal: Re-wire the brain with overriding pathways to achieve more productive empathy and mindfulness.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Chapter 7
This seems to be the respite of the book. The chapter starts with examples of people adopting leadership skills of Emotional Intelligence. Additionally, it provides methods for self-assessment for the next 15 years, as well as listing out (up to 27), what things a person would want to do before they die. Then, the chapter addresses a self-examination called the "logan test." This is a self-analysis of comparison of current day 'self' with the past 'self.'
Chapter 7 tries to provide methods of self-discovery. I attempted to use them on myself, but did not truly get anywhere. Did I fail? Am I happy or sad? Do I have a grasp on myself?
The only statement throughout the entire chapter that made identification was a story about Naranyana Murthy. In it, Murthy describes himself as "a capitalist in my mind, but a socialist in my heart." This is my living hippocrisy, paradox, and conflict. Can a person be split between logic and emotion?
Chapter 7 tries to provide methods of self-discovery. I attempted to use them on myself, but did not truly get anywhere. Did I fail? Am I happy or sad? Do I have a grasp on myself?
The only statement throughout the entire chapter that made identification was a story about Naranyana Murthy. In it, Murthy describes himself as "a capitalist in my mind, but a socialist in my heart." This is my living hippocrisy, paradox, and conflict. Can a person be split between logic and emotion?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Nature vs nurture
In chapter 6, Goleman begins to address the physiological predisposition and the contextual development of EI. He sights many examples about the learned elements speaking more than the genetic ones. Essentially, he gives some insight to emotional/motivational conditioning for developing leaders through EI, however he stipulates that the plasticity of the brain for learning information in the limbic system (the part of the brain that is designed for emotional learning) is moderated by slower learning neural connectivity due to its more primal/basic design. This is somewhat ridiculous.
Much of my personal study is on emotional conditioning to maximize learning. Whether happy or afraid, the information gathered at a strong emotional event tends to become more easily engrained. The excitatory effect of strong emotions facilitates the uptake of sensory input as a survival mechanism. Goleman tends to use 'motivation' as a prime mover for EI learning; however, what he states is just a softer/nicer implication for conditional learning. Granted, repeated strong emotional events can become tedious and inhibitory for learning, but I believe that individual design coordinated with varied emotionally related events could provide a better means of EI retention.
At the end of the chapter, Goleman addresses a cyclical means of development called Boyatzi's Theory of Self-Directed Learning. For some, this process may seem like a 'no duh,' but it's main benefit is the reliance on others providing analyses and feedback. Sometimes change is hard going it alone; having someone give you criticism and perspective is essential to truly achieve change. Boyatzi's 5 steps of discovery are simply put; however, I believe that this process is dependent on an EI specialist for guidance.
Much of my personal study is on emotional conditioning to maximize learning. Whether happy or afraid, the information gathered at a strong emotional event tends to become more easily engrained. The excitatory effect of strong emotions facilitates the uptake of sensory input as a survival mechanism. Goleman tends to use 'motivation' as a prime mover for EI learning; however, what he states is just a softer/nicer implication for conditional learning. Granted, repeated strong emotional events can become tedious and inhibitory for learning, but I believe that individual design coordinated with varied emotionally related events could provide a better means of EI retention.
At the end of the chapter, Goleman addresses a cyclical means of development called Boyatzi's Theory of Self-Directed Learning. For some, this process may seem like a 'no duh,' but it's main benefit is the reliance on others providing analyses and feedback. Sometimes change is hard going it alone; having someone give you criticism and perspective is essential to truly achieve change. Boyatzi's 5 steps of discovery are simply put; however, I believe that this process is dependent on an EI specialist for guidance.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
So now...
I have finished Goleman's focus on dissonant styles such as pacesetting and commanding. He indicates these elements to leadership can be beneficial, but only at the empathetic need of his/her followers.
The pacesetting style talks about a leader that has high expectations and requirements of his subordinates to feel the same. Goleman expects that all people equate their job to being as interchangeable as tight jeans or nylons--if they become uncomfortable, then find something else to wear! What he misses in this is the individual element of value. Not everyone sees their job, equally. Some look at it as a paycheck, others a do-or-die situation. If the other elements of leadership are in play, such as listed in the previous post, it becomes diluted to assume that everyone responds equally. Some people need stress and uncomfortability to perform! The research he provides gives some 'no duh' elements, but it is weak on over-generalizing.
Goleman even touches on the command style of the military, suggesting it is more 'teamwork' oriented. Tell that to a Marine. Command channels dictate life or death, there is no question, nor empathy, let alone time to interplay between commander and soldier.
What Goleman needs to address is the survival aspects for people in the workforce. He touches on this very little. If a person gauges survival by their job, then their performance isn't motivated by an open-eared CEO. These people do because they feel they have to, especially when economies are bad. Goleman throws away the external motivators for empathetic listening and self-awareness. Some people are all about the external! How do you address their needs?
I have to apologize. When I read generalizations like this book, I have a hard time accepting the data collected is based on teams of people feeling and performing based on Goleman's principles. People are individualistic and complex. Ok...moving on!
Chapter 5, dissonant styles. Simple words from me: sometimes you just have to do your job to the best of your ability without validation or soft ear. Sometmes you have to work just because your locus of control, work ethic, and/or survival mechanism requires you to do your best, regardless of a leader with innate and acquired skills of perception and charisma.
The pacesetting style talks about a leader that has high expectations and requirements of his subordinates to feel the same. Goleman expects that all people equate their job to being as interchangeable as tight jeans or nylons--if they become uncomfortable, then find something else to wear! What he misses in this is the individual element of value. Not everyone sees their job, equally. Some look at it as a paycheck, others a do-or-die situation. If the other elements of leadership are in play, such as listed in the previous post, it becomes diluted to assume that everyone responds equally. Some people need stress and uncomfortability to perform! The research he provides gives some 'no duh' elements, but it is weak on over-generalizing.
Goleman even touches on the command style of the military, suggesting it is more 'teamwork' oriented. Tell that to a Marine. Command channels dictate life or death, there is no question, nor empathy, let alone time to interplay between commander and soldier.
What Goleman needs to address is the survival aspects for people in the workforce. He touches on this very little. If a person gauges survival by their job, then their performance isn't motivated by an open-eared CEO. These people do because they feel they have to, especially when economies are bad. Goleman throws away the external motivators for empathetic listening and self-awareness. Some people are all about the external! How do you address their needs?
I have to apologize. When I read generalizations like this book, I have a hard time accepting the data collected is based on teams of people feeling and performing based on Goleman's principles. People are individualistic and complex. Ok...moving on!
Chapter 5, dissonant styles. Simple words from me: sometimes you just have to do your job to the best of your ability without validation or soft ear. Sometmes you have to work just because your locus of control, work ethic, and/or survival mechanism requires you to do your best, regardless of a leader with innate and acquired skills of perception and charisma.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Emotional Intelligence--Optimism?
Goleman's book speaks to competencies of Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management. Each category identifies success through optimism with empathy and virtue. Goleman infers that the only means to beneficial/successful leadership is predicated on generating positive energy, neurologically and socially.
When I look at historic figures of successful leadership (beneficial being the more subjective), such as Hitler, Napoleon, Madoff, Alexander the Great, Enron executives, I think of fear-mongering, lies, and deceit. Their followers did so out of these motivators. Additionally, think of many of the religions/churches around the world that thrive on fear-mongering to gain supporters/followers.
I think Goleman avoids the charisma/personality portion of this book to steer away from potential psychopathology for successful leadership. You could say that Ted Bundy was a great leader of killing people. This may seem silly, but the context for each person differs, as well as the motivation. Just because a leader identifies and relates to his followers/workers, does not necessarily speak to those who do so strictly out of fear/need.
I think it highly presumptuous to assume that successful leadership requires optimism/positivity. Success is contextual and motivation is individualistic.
I am about to start Chapter 5, The Dissonant Styles. Let's see what Goleman identifies.
When I look at historic figures of successful leadership (beneficial being the more subjective), such as Hitler, Napoleon, Madoff, Alexander the Great, Enron executives, I think of fear-mongering, lies, and deceit. Their followers did so out of these motivators. Additionally, think of many of the religions/churches around the world that thrive on fear-mongering to gain supporters/followers.
I think Goleman avoids the charisma/personality portion of this book to steer away from potential psychopathology for successful leadership. You could say that Ted Bundy was a great leader of killing people. This may seem silly, but the context for each person differs, as well as the motivation. Just because a leader identifies and relates to his followers/workers, does not necessarily speak to those who do so strictly out of fear/need.
I think it highly presumptuous to assume that successful leadership requires optimism/positivity. Success is contextual and motivation is individualistic.
I am about to start Chapter 5, The Dissonant Styles. Let's see what Goleman identifies.
Friday, June 10, 2011
First Post for Primal Leadership
I just started reading Daniel Goleman's, Primal Leadership--Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence.
Initially, the book begins to identify elements of Resonance and Dissonance leaders of government and business. The focus seems to tie in these elements of inherent limbic development and a leaders ability to be empathetic to his/her followers.
In my next blog, I will identify Emotional Intelligence and Associated Competencies.
Preston
Initially, the book begins to identify elements of Resonance and Dissonance leaders of government and business. The focus seems to tie in these elements of inherent limbic development and a leaders ability to be empathetic to his/her followers.
In my next blog, I will identify Emotional Intelligence and Associated Competencies.
Preston
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)