Quantifying Emotional Intelligence

We’re in the midst of a renaissance. History books will detail our lifetime as an era marked by the greatest technological advancements in the history of the world. Think about that. I’m the first to admit it doesn’t always feel that way, when we’re texting each other cat videos while sitting on the same couch, but in reality, I doubt the citizens of 15th-century Florence realized the significance of the time they were living in either. It’s difficult to have historical perspective when you’re experiencing something in real time.

Fast forward a few centuries and instead of laying on his back to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo could just type a handful of words into a database and a computer will generate a completely unique piece of art. It can turn raw data points into something beautiful. Data is an incredibly powerful thing. It has led to a massive overhaul of our everyday life, including our decision-making.

This has been massively proliferated over the past couple decades. From the board room to the locker room; the trader’s desk to the MLB manager’s desk; the sales pitch to the soccer pitch—data is king. We have such a wealth of information at our disposal now that it would be foolish not to fully utilize it to make informed decisions and targeted strategies. Rather than lean on gut feel, we can look to the data to tell us what to do. With this war chest of information to leverage, many times there’s really no decision to make at all. The data, and the path forward, is crystal clear.

Or is it?

We tend to overvalue what we can quantify. It’s human nature. Certainty is comfortable, so confronting any element of uncertainty can be uncomfortable. It’s eases our anxiety when we can point to cold, hard data to justify our actions. It’s a lot scarier to walk the decision highwire based on your instinct and experience alone, without that data safety net beneath you. The trap there is that while it’s easy to place a value on what we can quantify, not everything we can quantify is valuable. Furthermore, just because we can’t quantify something doesn’t make it less valuable. The warm embrace of data and the security it offers is too much for some to resist. If we’re not careful, though, it can blind us to the human element.

While technology has eliminated jobs and streamlined operations across the globe, we still rely on people to strategize, execute, lead, and follow. Without these people (or often teams of people), some technologies are as useful as a chocolate teapot. So, while some organizations may boast about having the best data, the best organizations usually have leaders who get buy in from their teams on, among other things, the value of that data and ultimately how to make it actionable.

It’s that second part that’s tough to assess for. How do you motivate people? How do you find a way to speak their language so your message resonates with them both as an individual and as a member of a team? For those who don’t consider raw data their love language, it requires emotional intelligence, something that itself is tricky to quantify. Most people believe that we can measure traditional intelligence using a wide array of assessments (think IQ tests). That’s the intellectual horsepower. But emotional intelligence? That’s knowing each individual horse well enough to get the entire team to pull the chariot as one team. More art than science.

When data disciples ascend into a leadership role, they tend to go with what they know. Again, that’s human nature. They slant toward data-driven decisions (good) and can marginalize or avoid those areas which are less quantifiable (not good). That creates a blind spot for both the leader and the organization. Both become numb to the power of the human element. Not only can this lead to a myopic decision-making process, it can also have catastrophic impact on culture & morale, when the humans feel like tools being used by technology rather than the other way around.

When you’re quant-oriented and looking to select a leader for your organization, you will naturally look to find someone who shares your love of data and promotes your vision. You will want someone who is making impactful decisions to do so in a manner you both relate to and agree with, and set a tone that will mirror your philosophy. On the other hand, what if you inherit a leader that comes from a different background than you and doesn’t share your same affinity for analytics? Maybe you even struggle to connect with them on a personal level. Despite failing to check these boxes on your hiring wish list, you keep hearing over and over that they command respect from their team. That they foster and environment of loyalty, trust, and stability. That they can lead. Maybe, you think. But that’s sort of anecdotal, isn’t it? Where’s the proof?

It can be tough to reconcile. You can kinda see it—the admiration, respect, maybe even general effectiveness, albeit manifested in a form unlike what you’re accustomed to. Do you trust what you don’t know, and can’t measure, or do you trust what you do know, and can? For the most ardent analytics evangelists, there is only one choice: data is the path to enlightenment and everything else is just noise. But those folks are cutting off their nose to spite their face. To think there’s only one “right way” to get to a solution is both naïve and arrogant. Numbers may not lie, but they don’t tell the whole story, either. It takes a self-assured person to acknowledge that just because they are weak at something doesn’t mean that particular something isn’t important. Accepting that as a blind spot for yourself, while acknowledging it’s a strength for someone else shouldn’t be seen as a threat. It should be an opportunity. Empower those who have what you lack. Not to check a box. To carry the weight.

Sadly this feels increasingly more rare. In polarized, competitive, me-first environments, new bosses often bring in “their guys” to help run things because they have “trust” and “are on the same page” (I’m not minimizing either of these considerations. Shared values and trust are both hugely important. Unfortunately they’re also often euphemisms for “they think like me”).

You can hire a bunch of people like you. But that’s not a culture, a philosophy, or even a team. It’s an echo chamber. Leaders who can augment their talent and experience with humility and self-awareness are a force to be reckoned with. Their talent creates value, credibility, and something to hang their hat on. Experience provides the wisdom, scar tissue, and instinct. The self-awareness shines a light on both what they do know and what they don’t, and the humility allows them to embrace the latter.

Today, there are a disproportionate number of highly-skilled professionals. They have the degrees, certifications, and bonafides to prove it. There’s a lot we can quantify to assess whether someone has the credentials for a job before we ever meet them. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the answer of who to choose as your next leader is somewhere on that resume. You’re going to have to figure out if that person sitting across from you can communicate, relate, build trust, elicit loyalty—if he or she has the emotional intelligence to thrive in a leadership role. A spreadsheet can’t answer it for you.

Previous
Previous

Let the Kids Play

Next
Next

What’s the worst that could happen?