NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

Newport, R.I.

Emotional Intelligence of Senior Leadership

by

Theodore J. St. John, Ph. D.

CDR, USN, MSC

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of National Security Decision Making.

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed
by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

09 Feb 2010
 Emotional Intelligence of Senior Leadership

Introduction

Articles and books on senior leadership usually give guidance and list important principles, but

there is rarely any mention of how health or emotions affect one‟s ability to lead. General J. Lawton

Collins is an exception since he includes health as one of the main qualities of a great senior leader in the

article covered in SLS 1-3. He discussed a speech given by General Troy Middletown and said that “he

was the first man I ever heard emphasize the necessity of good health as an essential for a leader. But

when you stop and think about it, it is absolutely essential – good physical health, and more important,

again – good mental health.”1 He included several examples of how poor health, due to hearing loss,

stomach ulcers, or the tendency to blow up when things went wrong, had a significant negative impact on

the leader‟s efficiency. Health was emphasized as “absolutely essential” but it was discussed last, and

only in three short paragraphs in a thirteen page speech. Maybe it‟s common knowledge that health is

important and maybe we assume that mental health problems will be noticed by superiors and dealt with

on a case-by-case basis. But what happens if a senior leader cannot deal with his own emotional

problems?

One of the issues that Collins mentioned, the tendency to blow up, is usually considered to be a

personality problem rather than a health problem. However, according to Daniel Goleman, an

internationally renowned psychologist who wrote Emotional Intelligence, why it can matter more than

IQ,

These emotional explosions are neural hijackings. At those moments, evidence suggests, a center
in the limbic brain proclaims an emergency, recruiting the rest of the brain to its urgent agenda.
The hijacking occurs in an instant, triggering this reaction crucial moments before the neocortex,
the thinking brain, has a chance to glimpse fully what is happening, let alone decide if it‟s a good

1
Collins, pg. 38

Page 2 of 9
 idea. The hallmark of such a hijack is that once the moment passes, those so possessed have the
sense of not knowing what came over them. 2

These “emotional hijackings” are therefore symptoms of a mental health problem that could

affect one‟s ability to lead or make decisions. It is common knowledge that stress can cause physical

health problems and health problems can create situations that result in added stress resulting in a self-

destructive cycle. When senior leaders get into this cycle, entire services may be affected. Health

problems are personal and are often hidden. In fact, the sick person often doesn‟t even know he or she is

sick, so it is not always obvious when a person‟s health is affecting his ability to lead. Studies have

shown that emotional intelligence (EI)3 – a term used to describe a person‟s self-awareness, self-

confidence, self-control, commitment and integrity, ability to communicate, influence, initiate change and

accept change – is significantly correlated with morale, stress, general health, and supervisor rating of

performance. 4

In addition to a physical and mental health assessment, I submit that EI is essential for executive

leadership and should be assessed when a leader assumes command and on a regular basis thereafter.

Emotional Intelligence

The idea of EI was developed by psychologists who realized that the current measure of

intelligence, the IQ, was sorely lacking in its ability to predict the competence and success of a person

outside of academia. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, revolved around a narrow band of linguistic and

math skills. EI is designed to measure personal as well as interpersonal skills and behaviors, some of

which may be inherent traits and some may be learned. There are five domains that define EI. These are

knowing one‟s emotions (self awareness–recognizing a feeling as it happens–is the keystone of EI);

2
Goleman, pg 14
3
Goleman introduced EQ as a metric comparable to IQ, but most authors use EI to mean the same thing as
EQ. EI is used in this paper.
4
Conte, pg 434

Page 3 of 9
managing one‟s emotions; motivating oneself; recognizing emotions in others; and handling relationships.

Most of the cases covered in SLS involve senior leaders who either had these skills or stood out as

examples of poor leaders when they didn‟t.

Goleman‟s approach has gained popularity among psychologists and leadership/ management

specialists since it was introduced in 1995. At that time, there were no tests available to measure an EI

score. However, in the 2005 edition of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, psychologist Jeffrey

Conte of San Diego State University department of psychology stated that “interest in EI has increased

greatly over the past decade” and several EI tests have been developed. 5 Using those tests in studies

designed to determine correlations, EI has been shown to impact a leader‟s ability to be effective.

However, there are still unanswered questions about the measurement of EI, so it is not presented here as

the end-all solution.6 Instead, the concept of EI will be examined in the same fashion as context, content,

and process, introduced by Ronald Ratcliff in SLS 1-1, for examining leaders presented in the course. A

similar set of categories was used by Robert K. Cooper and Ayman Sawaf in the book, Executive EQ:

emotional intelligence in leadership organizations (1997) to assess EI at the executive level.7 These are:

1) Current Environment (life events (including health), work pressures, and personal pressures),

2) Emotional Literacy (self awareness),

3) EQ Competencies (intentionality, creativity, resilience, interpersonal connections, constructive

discontent), and

4) EQ Values and Belief (compassion).

5
Conte, pg 433
6
Conte compares and critiques four of the major EI assessments: Emotional Competence Inventory,
Emotional Quotient Inventory, Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale, and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test V.2.
7
Cooper, , pg xxvii, http://books.google.com (accessed Jan 23, 2010)

Page 4 of 9
Context

The Current environment category of Cooper‟s EI assessment covers several conditions that

Ratcliff includes under the Context of leadership. Ratcliff focuses on luck and job-related items and

leaves out the effect that personal or emotional challenges can have on one‟s ability to concentrate. Part

of Cooper‟s EI assessment includes the person‟s health, as well as the health of his family and friends in

this category. Most of the EI items are personal in nature, (e. g. marital problems, recent separation or

divorce, new baby, etc, and some job-related such as getting fired or laid off, new boss, exceptionally

difficult project, problems with subordinates, and other changes) that cause distress.

It may be extremely difficult for a senior leader to maintain flexibility of mind (to see all aspects

of the issue from various perspectives) if his brain is physically unable to process large amounts of

information due to illness or the effects of medication. According to Robertson, “Richard Taylor, a

fellow Confederate general, thought that Bragg „furnished a striking illustration of the necessity of a

healthy body for sound intellect‟” (Robertson, pg. 76, SLS-4) Bragg‟s performance as a senior leader

must have been significantly impacted by his poor health, which included migraine headaches, dyspepsia,

rheumatism, boils, and diarrhea. Robertson stated that these problems impaired his physical health,

soured his temper and left him irritable and contentious most of the time. Confederate general Henry

Heth even stated that “General Bragg had lost his mind.” (pg 81) Eventually, Bragg‟s subordinates “were

convinced that any movement Bragg ordered was potentially disastrous because Bragg ordered it.” (pg

85) Jefferson Davis probably should have relieved Bragg, at least until he was able to control himself, but

failed to do so. The reasons are not explained, but perhaps a system to measure EI would have at least

given Davis a measure of effectiveness that would have alerted him to the need for close evaluation, and

then given him a way to decide when he could return to service.

Lee also had some health problems, and although they didn‟t seem to affect his leadership

abilities as much as Bragg, they did have some negative effect. Throughout 1863and 1864, he had

symptoms of heart problems, he was in severe pain from back problems, and then was stricken with

Page 5 of 9
dysentery. Gallagher‟s description of Lee in May 1864, about the time that he was diagnosed with

dysentery, made it sound like he became a bit suicidal, asking for all the aid he can get and then

repeatedly riding up to the front, placing himself at high risk. His refusal to recognize his emotional state

or to “commit such a task to any available lieutenant” 8 may have cost him a victory over Grant at North

Anna River. His physician said that he remained cheerful, and there was no mention of any emotional

outbursts, but his ability to make decisions was obviously impaired.

Most physicians will tell a patient not to return to work or make any important decisions until the

effects of a surgery or medicine has worn off. However, a senior leader is often that hard-charging person

who considers himself indestructible and comes to work regardless of physical or emotional condition.

The only way a person like that will stay away from work or avoid making important decisions might be

if doing so would break the rules. A self-assessment that provides a measure of EI and a regulation that

requires a minimum score might give that person the requirement he needs to stay home or get counseling

until he has recovered. Bragg was highly self-disciplined but he pushed himself beyond the point that

caused him to impair his health, which aggravated his already low EI and caused him to destroy morale

and make poor decisions.

Content

The rest of the EI categories fall within the area of content, which addresses personal traits and

characteristics that impact a person‟s ability to lead. Cooper‟s EI assessment includes some of the traits

that Ratcliff listed as “increasingly understood to form the bedrock or foundation of leadership.” (pg 5)

These traits (ambition, dedication, honesty, integrity, creativity and flexibility) are similar to EI

Competencies (intentionality, creativity, resilience, interpersonal connections and constructive

discontent). Character traits such as ambition, dedication, honesty, and integrity are part of the definition

8
Gallagher, pg 29

Page 6 of 9
of EI yet are not covered in the assessment - suggesting that other EI assessments should be evaluated for

use in addition to or instead if Cooper‟s.

Perhaps the main reason we study leadership traits at the Naval War College is so that we may

recognize the traits and characteristics in ourselves. This self-awareness (Emotional literacy) allows us to

recognize our strengths and weaknesses, to honestly evaluate ourselves and to identify opportunities for

improvement. General Omar Bradley believed that a leader had to possess a good deal of compassion,

that „Men are not robots… [they] are intelligent, complicated beings who will respond favorably to

human understanding and consideration.‟” (Ratcliff, SLS-1) Compassion is assessed in EI Values and

Belief and it is as important as self awareness.

In terms of content, General Bragg seems to define the lowest that EI can be for a senior leader.

Robertson summarized his essay on Bragg as follows:

Bragg‟s many faults are well documented: the inability to inspire and motivate those around him,
his lack of desire to cultivate--or tolerate--those with whom he disagreed, a distrust of volunteers
(especially officers), the failure to win battles even when he appeared to have the upper hand,
wretched health, vacillation, a tendency to evade responsibility at critical moments, an incapacity
to learn from mistakes, and a personality that ranged from choleric to repulsive. 9

Robert E. Lee was the antithesis of Bragg. One of the reasons that Lee was considered to be a great leader

is because he was level-headed and able to control his emotions, which resulted in a very positive

relationship between he and his troops. The movie clip presented in class showed him dealing with a

situation that might have upset most people, but he demonstrated high EI and handled it with patience and

dignity. Lee was self-aware, compassionate and very much aware that his troops deserved credit for the

victories. He realized that public acknowledgement of others was important and gave credit where credit

was due. He took full responsibility for failures and his troops knew that he cared about them. They

believed that his decisions were not knee-jerk emotional reactions and would follow him wherever he led.

9
Robertson, pg 94

Page 7 of 9
Process

The measure of EI is not affected by process, but instead, the process that a leader chooses to

follow may depend on his EI. There are many processes, both formal and informal, that leaders choose to

follow. People with high EI are positive, people-oriented, enthusiastic and inspirational. They do things

in ways that motivate and inspire others, and they constantly strive to improve themselves.

The idea that measuring and improving EI can improve one‟s success as a leader (which agrees

with Behavioral Theory presented in SLS-3) may be difficult for some to swallow. Unless a person

already has a certain amount of self-awareness, he won‟t reflect on his personal quality as much as he

might on the quality of mission-related metrics. As long as metrics indicate that the job is getting done,

there is no need to improve EI. However, in order for a leader to go from good to great, he has to be

capable of introspection.

Counterargument and Conclusion

One might argue that a measurement of EI is too subjective because it is based on answers to a

self-assessment questionnaire, which requires self-awareness in order to answer correctly. There are far

too few questions on Cooper‟s assessment and the questions posed will not reveal enough useful

information. For example, a person with no self-awareness could answer “Very well” to the first question:

“I can name my feelings (Very well, moderately well, a little, not at all),” without knowing that it is the

wrong answer. The same is true about the question: “I am aware of my feelings most of the time.”

It is true that any survey can be answered incorrectly and even dishonestly, and therefore EI

measurements are not fool-proof and will not help everyone. In fact, some authors who speak positively

about EI will not endorse any of the EI tests currently available. Clearly, the very simple questionnaire

presented by Cooper should not be used to determine whether or not a senior leader should be in

command. However, this does not devalue the concept itself. It only suggests that the assessment

process needs to be chosen with care to ensure that the questions are adequate.

Page 8 of 9
 I still believe that EI is essential for executive leadership and should be assessed when a leader

assumes command and on a regular basis thereafter, but additional methods, such as informant

approaches (subordinate, peer and supervisor input, some of which are discussed by Samuel Bliss of the

University of Bellevue and can be found at EQI.org), should be used to supplement the self-report

assessment. In my next assignment as an executive officer, I will use the concept of EI to improve my

own self-awareness, but not to assess others without doing a lot more research into better assessment

methods.

Bibliography

Bliss, Samuel E. "The Affect of Emotional Intelligence on a Modern Organizational Leader's

Ability to Make Effective Decisions." EQI, Bellevue University. 2009. http://eqi.org/mgtpaper.htm

(accessed Jan 23, 2010).

Collins, J. Lawton. "Leadership at Higher Echelons." Military Review, SLS 1-3 (HQ, Dept of the

Army) 70 (May 1990): 33-45.

Conte, Jeffrey M. "A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures." Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 2005: 433-440.

Cooper, Robert. "Executive EQ: emotional intelligence in leadership organizations." Google

Books. 1997. http://books.google.com (accessed Jan 23, 2010).

Covey, Steven. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon and Schuster,

Inc, 1989.

Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence, Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantum

Books, 1995.

Ratcliff, Ronald E. Introduction to the Senior Leadership Seminar. SLS 1-1, Newport: Naval War

College, 2008.

Page 9 of 9