|
by Daniel Goleman
Dr. Goleman did an excellent job with his second book on Emotional Intelligence because he gives more detail on how to correct the lack of Emotional Intelligence in the business and professional world.
On page 26 he tells us how to do a check up on our missing competences for emotional intelligence( both personal and social competencies) and he also mentions that there must be a continious follow up on this program to achieve a lasting effect over the change of our un-wanted bad habits and he alos mentions the guidelines for emotional competence TRAINING which is very helpful in the seminars to train management executives.
Dr. Goleman explains also that it takes months to be able to modify our personality, so that some people will not dispair because they can not get an overnight change, it takes time, perseverance and practice to become a proficient and capable executive with good emotional intelligence. Dr. Goleman also explains the effect that stress has on CONTROL and how it affects mistakes, memory and health and overall management.
In other words Dr. Goleman is helping everybody to modify their personalities to be able to produce more with less stress and wear (or exhaustion).
|
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9 |
Index of More Articles about Leadership
|
The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment
In above video you will see kids participating in the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment. The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment must be the most astounding psychological study ever performed, or at any rate ranking right up there with some of the experiments done by Stanley Milgram. Who would ever guess that a brief observation of a four-year old alone with a marshmallow would be an excellent predictor of college entrance exam scores — twice as good a predictor as IQ test scores? In one of the most amazing developmental studies ever conducted, Walter Michel of Stanford created a simple test of the ability of four year old children to control impulses and delay gratification. Children were taken one at a time into a room with a one-way mirror. They were shown a marshmallow. The experimenter told them he had to leave and that they could have the marshmallow right then, but if they waited for the experimenter to return from an errand, they could have two marshmallows. One marshmallow was left on a table in front of them. Some children grabbed the available marshmallow within seconds of the experimenter leaving. Others waited up to twenty minutes for the experimenter to return. In a follow-up study (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990), children were tested at 18 years of age and comparisons were made between the third of the children who grabbed the marshmallow (the "impulsive") and the third who delayed gratification in order to receive the enhanced reward ("impulse controlled"). The third of the children who were most impulsive at four years of age scored an average of 524 verbal and 528 math. The impulse controlled students who scored 610 verbal and 652 math! This astounding 210 point total score difference on the SAT was predicted on the basis of a single observation at four years of age! The 210 point difference is as large as the average differences between that of economically advantaged versus disadvantaged children and is larger than the difference between children from families with graduate degrees versus children whose parents did not finish high school! At four years of age gobbling a marshmallow now v. waiting for two later is twice as good a predictor of later SAT scores than is IQ. Poor impulse control is also a better predictor of later delinquency than is IQ. Obviously there's a strong correlation between IQ and impulse control. People who do well in life have lots of both, and vice versa for those who don't do well. Sociologists have regaled us for years with their theories as to the causes of poverty: lack of education, structural causes, racism. But it seems that, at least where opportunity exists, the reason for differences in income and wealth is that the poor have high impulsivity.
|
How to Leverage Your Strengths for Peak Performance
Ask almost any business leader how to most effectively develop people and build teamwork and you'll hear, "tap into employees' strengths."
Yet when it comes to their own careers, many managers still focus the majority of their personal development efforts on shoring up areas of weakness.
Article to continue below-------------------------------------
Sometimes this is due to well meaning critiques by superiors. Other times managers moving up the career ladder try to emulate those who have gone before.
While all managers need to hone their communication and people skills, learning these skills and adding knowledge is simple. Recognizing, developing and deliberately leveraging ones own strengths is more difficult.
Article to continue below------------------------------------
Many programs are available to help the ambitious manager improve performance, but a review of typical business practices points to a common fallacy. Whether in individual development plans, performance reviews or 360 evaluations, efforts to help people change for the better often focus more on weaknesses than on strengths.
From our earliest years we are programmed to believe that our greatest potential for growth is in our areas of greatest deficiency. Think about it. If your child received an A in English and a C in Math, where would you focus most of your attention? Social psychologists have found that focusing on strengths leads to higher performance, greater productivity and increased satisfaction. In fact, honing your abilities to their greatest potential can essentially make your weaknesses irrelevant. Today's business environment offers many more opportunities for advancement than ever before. But to take advantage of these opportunities, you need to recognize your areas of greatest competency, work to develop those to their fullest potential, then match your strengths to the right challenge and the right role. Attaining the next level of performance involves identifying and enhancing your core competencies -- your strengths -- rather than attempting to remedy every weakness. Delegate every possible activity that doesn't fit your strengths, and only attend to areas of weakness that stand in the way of doing what you do best. While it seems that most of us should be aware of our strengths, we often confuse strengths - what we do well - with traits (our personality characteristics) or work habits (the conditions under which we perform). Many of us also take our strengths for granted. In doing what seems absolutely natural and logical to us, we fail to recognize that we are actually creating outcomes far superior to what others might have expected. Harvard psychologist and pioneer of Multiple Intelligence theory, Dr. Howard Gardner, points out that people have many more areas of intelligence - or capacities to produce useful outcomes - than previously realized. Where traditional I.Q. testing measures linguistic and mathematical ability, we now know that other abilities such as interpersonal intelligence - the ability to understand and relate well to others - and spatial intelligence - the capacity to create or plan in multiple dimensions - can have a significant value. So how do you determine your greatest strengths? One way is to examine your own past and present performance and try to discern a pattern of successful behavior. What comes easily to you that might be more difficult for others - negotiating a tough contract, analyzing financial data, creating an advertising strategy, leading a team? Or you could use feedback analysis as described by management guru Peter Drucker in his book management Challenges for the 21st Century. Whenever you undertake a key activity or make an important decision, write down your expectations. Then, a few months later, reexamine your expectations and the actual results you achieved. Match Your Strengths to Your Tasks Once you know your strengths, you need to figure out how best to use them. It used to be that organizations managed the careers of their people, but today that obligation belongs to each one of us. You have the responsibility to know yourself and determine where and how you would perform best. Often the difference between success and failure is not learning additional skills but rather figuring out how, given your strengths, you can adjust yourself to the demands of your specific position. This is particularly important when the nature of your job changes. Jack was a star sales manager for an educational products company. His ability to form strong connections with his team and develop his people resulted in lower turnover and significantly increased sales. Jack also worked well with his colleagues, leading brainstorming sessions that resulted in a new integrated product and service offering - with significant profit margins for the company. Jack's abilities both in the office and in the field caught the attention of company executives who saw him as a natural leader. When the opportunity came for significant career advancement, Jack jumped at it. Jack had the advantage of following in the footsteps of Ellen, an admired veteran. Unlike Jack, Ellen had risen through the ranks of finance. She spent three weeks helping Jack transition into the new position before leaving to head operations in Europe. Yet a few months into his new job as regional manager, Jack found himself becoming more and more frustrated with his work. He productivity was down and his former sense of eagerness to get to work each morning had disappeared. As we worked with Jack, we began to see that his strengths were largely interpersonal and creative. He shone as he worked with his team, made presentations and coached his direct reports. But most of his work now involved written reports, formal strategy sessions and routine management tasks that had little to do with Jack's greatest competencies. After pinpointing his strengths, Jack began the work of redesigning his job so that it fit better with his He used his natural team-building and creative abilities in meetings that brought together representatives of the sales and product design departments to brainstorm ways of better serving customer needs. He found an assistant who excelled at writing reports and organizing data and began delegating these tasks as much as possible. With this new focus on his areas of greatest competency, Jack felt a renewed satisfaction in his work. His productivity and performance improved greatly. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and while there will be many who encourage you to work on your deficiencies, the key to high performance is to look for what you do uncommonly well and focus there. Armed with this self-knowledge, you will better be able to determine how you can best contribute -- both now and in the next phase of your career. Your greatest successes will come from placing yourself in a position where your strengths can meet opportunities for their regular expression. And, as maximizing your strength becomes a habit, you'll be in a better position to help those around you maximize their abilities, leading to greater productivity and satisfaction for you, your team and your organization. © 2005 Dr. Robert Karlsberg & Dr. Jane Adler Dr. Robert Karlsberg and Dr. Jane Adler are senior leadership consultants and founders of Strategic Leadership LLC. They work with senior executives to maximize performance, facilitate transitions and accelerate major change initiatives. Contact them at 301-530-5611 or visit http://www.PsychologyofPerformance.com
|