As a manager, you're responsible for leading and motivating a team of individuals with different personalities, strengths, and weaknesses. One key trait that can help you succeed in this role is emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence, or EQ, refers to the ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. It includes skills such as empathy, self-awareness, self-regulation, and social skills. Here are some ways that emotional intelligence can help you be a more effective manager:
- Build better relationships with your team. By demonstrating empathy and understanding towards your team members, you can create a sense of trust and psychological safety. This can lead to better communication, collaboration, and ultimately, better performance.
- Manage conflict more effectively. Conflict is a natural part of any workplace, but as a manager, it's your job to resolve it in a constructive manner. By using your emotional intelligence skills, you can identify the root causes of the conflict, communicate effectively, and find solutions that work for everyone involved.
- Make better decisions. By being self-aware and understanding your own biases and emotions, you can make more rational and objective decisions. Additionally, by understanding the emotions and perspectives of others, you can make decisions that take into account the needs and concerns of your team.
- Motivate and inspire your team. A manager with high emotional intelligence can inspire and motivate their team members by understanding their individual needs, providing feedback that is tailored to their strengths and weaknesses, and creating a positive and supportive work environment.
In short, emotional intelligence is a crucial skill for effective management. By understanding and managing your own emotions, as well as the emotions of others, you can build better relationships, manage conflict more effectively, make better decisions, and motivate and inspire your team.
The above was written by this month's guest writer - ChatGPT. For those who don't know, ChatGPT is a large language model - that is an artificial intelligence which has been trained on a huge body of literature to effectively generate its own content. On a whim, I asked it to generate me some blog post titles for posts about management and one that came up was "The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Effective Management". I asked it to write that post and the unedited results are above. Not bad, eh? Guess we're all out of a job pretty soon.
Well...
There are a few reasons the answer is "no" which other, more expert, writers have gone through before. In very simplified terms, this kind of artificial intelligence works by guessing the next word in the sentence using probability from analysing a vast body of existing literature (the "large" part of the language model). It generates text using a variety of language rules and learns some context from interactions in the conversation (eg in my example I said "please write the eighth suggestion" and it knew what I meant) and this all results in something that looks like it can respond intelligently to your questions.
So, again very simply put if you say to ChatGPT "Twinkle twinkle" it will respond with "little star" - not because it understands, but because the vast majority of times when someone says "twinkle twinkle it is followed with "little star". This also creates a problem with accuracy - ChatGPT has no idea what it's saying but that won't stop it saying it very confidently[1].
Anyway, there are a load of fascinating technical and ethical questions here but I want to look back at the post it created for me. This one is high-level but you can keep asking "how do I ..." and drill deeper and the answers are pretty good. However, to me they all feel like they lack some substance and are hollow checklists and that raises an important question to me. I'm less interested in "is an AI drawing closer to doing my job?" rather "what is the point of my job if it feels like a very clever predictive text system can do it?"
And to note - I have deliberately been asking questions about emotional intelligence here. This should be what separates people from computers. Does management just lack substance?
Sadly, the answer is often yes. If a manager learns how to lead from a book and follows the steps then they will become ManagerGPT as above, and will indeed be an efficient but hollow step in a reporting chain. I've certainly met and worked with managers like this - people who seem to have learned about being human from a distance and don't seem to be able to reconcile the recommendations with their own actions. They sometimes do quite well, but they are rarely recognised as good leaders by those who have to follow them.
So what did ChatGPT miss? There are no anecdotes in there - it's a cold checklist of suggestions with no emotional warmth or grounding. It can't follow through - it's all well and good having the step "learn the names of your report's children" but it wont actually go out and do that. These are the kind of thing that separates "leadership" from "authentic leadership".
Most importantly, AI cannot give the gift of its time because it has basically infinite time available to it. This means even when it is developed so it can fake the above (and it will be) we as humans will not respond well because for compliments to land we need to know it's more than mathematically calculated, or for attention to matter we need to know there is some kind of cost to the giver. For me, this is why we laugh at that scene in Demolition Man where the man is getting a pep-talk from an ATM (before being beaten up by Wesley Snipes), but that same dialogue would be more poignant if spoken by actual people.
In short, writing about emotional intelligence and empathy and actually developing them are quite different things and for the moment this is where humans can still add value. And, obviously, we should be making sure we actually DO that thing. All humans - even managers.
If you want to have a go at getting ChatGPT to do your job for you, you can find it on the OpenAI website. I certainly haven't used it to generate papers for the board (although if I did I'd absolutely list it as a co-author).
[1] This example comes from Simon Willison's excellent post about Bing and is originally drawn from Talking About Large Language Models by Murray Shanahan.
