Emotional Intelligence in the Military Curriculum
Ms Lily Wisker
Command and Staff College, New Zealand
Introduction
The role of leadership in the defence forces is becoming increasingly imperative as defence issues and challenges become more complex and multifaceted. Military effectiveness relies on the ability of leaders to respond to ongoing pressure and to manage others efficiently. To prepare for these challenges, we need tobuild up curriculum that enables to develop military leaders than can adapt to new changes and unexpected circumstances. In recent years there have been considerable growing interests expressed about the scientific viability of emotional intelligence, EI (Goleman, 1995; 1998; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). This concept has flourished as a result of claims suggesting that emotional intelligence is a reliable predictor for leader effectiveness (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1998).
This overarching purpose of this paperis to explore the emerging field of emotional intelligence (EI), its dimensions, and theimplication it has for military leader development curriculum. Finally I attempt to provide some strategies to develop EI in the curriculum.
Overview of Emotional Intelligence (EI)
The theory of emotional intelligence was initiated by Harvard psychologist, Howard Gardner in 1983 (Chrusciel, 2006). He built his theory based on the social intelligence concept developed by Thordike in 1920(Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). The theory was then expanded by Mayer and Salovey in the early 1990s. However, it did not become popular until Goleman published his book in 1995. EI has been developed from neuro-psychology and neuro-science, and focuses on the connections and circuitry in the brain that regulates emotions and in particular focuses on the role of brain connectivity between the amygdale and the neural-cortex (Roche, 2004).
There are three predominant approaches to EI that have been validated and used widely by a number of scholars in recent years. These are (not in anyparticular order of importance);
- EQ-i Bar-On (Emotional Quotient Inventory) by Bar-On (1997);
- ECi- 2 (Emotional Competence Inventory version 2) by Goleman (1995;1998);
- MSCEIT (Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) by Mayer, Salovey Caruso (1990; 1997; 2002; 2004); and
The descriptions are summarised in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Summary and Comparison of Emotional Intelligence Measure Characteristics
Study / Type / EI Measures / Theoretical Model / EI Dimensions and Scales / LengthMayer, Salovey and Caruso (2002) / Ability test against expert and consensus opinion / Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) / Salovey & Mayer (1990; 1997) /
- Perception, appraisal, expression of emotion.
- Emotional facilitation of thinking
- Understanding and analysing emotional information
- Regulation and management of emotion
Sala (2002) / Self-report questionnaire
multirater / Emotional Competence Inventory, Version 2
(ECI-2) / Goleman (1995; 1998) /
- Self-awareness
- Self-management
- Social awareness
- Social skills
Bar-On (2004) / Self-report questionnaire
Multirater / Emotional Competence Quotient (EQ-i) / Bar-On (1997) /
- Intrapersonal
- Interpersonal
- Adaptation
- Stress management
- General mood
Law, Wong, & Song (2002) / Self-report questionnaire against peers’ opinion
Self- report against supervisor’s opinion / WLEIS scale / Salovey & Mayer (1990; 1997)
Davies et al. (1998) /
- Self emotion appraisal
- Others emotions appraisal
- Use of emotion
- Regulation of emotion
Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler (2006) / Self-report questionnaire / Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) / Salovey, Mayer & Caruso (1997) /
- Mood regulation
- Appraisal of Emotion
- Use of Emotion
- Sharing/experiencing Emotion
self-assessment
Psychologist Bar-On (1997) uses emotional quotient to illustrate emotional intelligence as an array of non-cognitive skills. Further he describes emotional intelligence as knowledge and a set of emotional and social capabilities that influences one’s general ability to effectively face her/his environment’s demands (Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin, 2005). Based on 19 years of research and tested on over 48,000 individuals worldwide, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory is designed to measure a number of construct related to emotional intelligence. However the measure has received robust criticism due to the nature of its testing. The measure is allied with reality testing, independence, long lists of non cognitive skills and the scales assess self-reports of something broader than EI (Bar On, 1997; 2000). As a result the conceptualisations often have little or nothing specifically to do with emotions and fail to map onto the term emotional intelligence ((Mayer et al., 2004).
Emotional intelligence from Goleman’s (1995;1998) perspective is defined by competencies that may be developed through learning (D. Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Emotional intelligence is claimed to increase with age and is linked with maturity and as such it can be learnt and improved on over time to some extent through practice and commitment (Goleman, 1995). The effective management of emotions could contribute to the handling of the needs, satisfaction, and motivation of a subordinate at work (Goleman, 1998). Goleman’s claims however, were rarely supported by empirical findings. Consequently his concept of EI is the least adopted by other studies (Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006).
Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (2000) define EI as the ability to accuratelyperceive, appraise and express emotion; the ability to assess and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. Emotional intelligence involves the recognition, use, understanding and management of others’ emotional states and the ability to use those feelings to motivate and achieve (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).The abilities can be measured by reading emotion in faces, or group interactions through Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) measures (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The MSCEIT test contains tasks that ask respondents to identify emotions in photographs of faces and in images and landscapes, compare different emotions to different sensations such as colours, indicate how emotions influence thinking and reasoning, assemble emotions into complex feelings, identify how emotions transition from one to another, and rate the effectiveness of different emotion regulation strategies in both intrapersonal and interpersonal contexts.
Emotional Intelligenceand Leadership Performance
There have been several analytic studies that have shown a positive association between emotional intelligence and managerial performance (Dulewicz, Young, & Dulewicz, 2005; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002; Semadar et al., 2006)
A growing body of research claims that EI is a better predictor of success than the traditional measures of general intelligence, IQ (D. Goleman, 1995, 1998; Pellitteri, 2002). The higher up a leader goes in an organisation, the more important emotional intelligence becomes, compared to IQ and technical skills (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). More recently, Dulewicz, Young, and Dulewicz’s (2005) study provides some initial evidence that emotional intelligence makes the greatest contributions to overall performance of leaders(9.2%) compared to general intelligence (5.0%) and managerial competencies (6.1%). Emotional intelligence can enhance job performance of leaders even with low cognitive skills through quality of social relationships (Cote & Miners, 2006). For example, if job performance is not attained through cognitive intelligence, it can be attained through emotional intelligence via multiple complementary mechanisms such as interactions with subordinates, co-workers, supervisors, and support staff (Cote & Miners, 2006).
A leader with high emotional intelligence may employ their abilities to develop good social relationships that can boast task performance through advice and social support (Pearce & Randel, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). For instance, the ability to be empathetic and understand both one’s own emotions and the emotions of others would enable one to establish rapport with and effectively manage subordinates (Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006).
A leader who possesses the ability to manage his/her emotions may be likely to exercise self-control in problem situations thus earning the respect and trust of followers (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). In addition, a leader that is able to manage and control emotional states such as anger and frustration can be conducive to a more stable working environment (Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000). Interestingly Isen, Daubman and Nowicki (1987) suggests that leaders who possess the ability to control their moods and emotions or express positive moods may be likely to engage in creative and innovative thinking and to encourage this type of thinking among their followers(Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987).
Other researchers, Coteand Miners (2006) reveal that emotional intelligence is an important predictor of job performance due to its interactive effect with cognitive intelligence. Previous research has also explicitly proposed that emotional intelligence relates to task performance in independent and complementary linear ways (Cote & Miners, 2006).
Leaders who posses the ability to understand their followers needs and expectations may have an advantage in terms of inspiring and motivating followers (Barling, et al., 2000). In order for leaders to inspire, motivate and boast the morale of their followers, they may utilise emotions to enhance cognitive processing of events or issues that pose a threat to the organisation (George, 2000).
Emotional Intelligence and Military Leadership
Some military leaders are likely to dismiss the concept of EI as too “soft, civilian and wimpy image” and therefore irrelevant to the military’s unique warfighting mission. That would be a mistake (Abrahams, 2007). In the next paragraph I will analyse the definition of leadership from the military perspective as defined in Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership, USA (1999) and relate it to an emotional intelligence competence framework.The US Army leadership framework has defined seven values, three attributes, four skills and three actions as the fundamental leadership characteristics to prepare military leaders.
“Leadership is influencing people – by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organisation”.
(FM 22-100, 1999, p. 4-6)
Influencing is the central tenet to the Army’s definition of leadership and it is about getting subordinates to do what a leader wants them to do as a result of an interactive process between the two. The time for “do it my way or highway” has gone.Effective military leaders that have developed interpersonal and social skills that would allow them to increase their ability to communicate with subordinates, and eventually be able to align subordinates’ goals and aspirations with the organisation’s missions. In fact social skills would enable leaders to manage conflict, initiate and manage change, and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals.
Next, I would like you to observe the incident below.
Accordingto a commanding officer who servedat Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm;
“As soon as we stepped off the plane at our final location, the major challenge for me and the four other officers in our 100-man PRIME BEEF team was to keep morale up. Initially we had limited tools and equipment, poor food, grossly overcrowded living conditions, and a sense that we were just a burden on the base. I found myself constantly explaining the big picture when I didn’t know what it was. Nor did I know whether our situation would improve. I never realised how much the enlisted force depended on us for information and leadership. We spent a significant amount of time counselling and trying to boast the morale of the soldiers up. I had not expected this task, and frequently I found it difficult due to the complexity of the problem or just plain lack of experience in counselling on my part.”
(as cited in Latour, Bradley, & Hosmer, 2002)
This incident clearly illustrates that operational deployments require military leaders to possess the full spectrum of leadership skills. Military leaders must remain alert to signs of stress within the people. The domain of EI, in this example, empathy can be employed to manage emotions and boastmorale of subordinates.If only he was exposed to leadership development and building of EI abilities and skills, he would be able to understand his subordinates by sensing the subordinates’ feeling and perspectives and taking an active interest in their concerns.He would be able to counsel and mentor through the stress of long periods away from home.
Success on operations often depends more on morale than on material advantages. Numbers, armament and physical resources cannot compensate for lack of courage, cohesion, energy, determination, endurance, skill and a warfighting ethos, that spring from a national determination to succeed. The development and subsequent maintenance of the qualities of morale are therefore essential to success in war (NZDDP-D, 2004, p. 6-12).
Other research conducted in the military contextby Livingstone, Nadjiwon-Foster and Smithers (2002) for the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute reveals that there is a conceptual link between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership suggesting that the domains of EI may be important for the prediction of transformational leadership behaviours.
The Myth of Emotional Intelligence
Asthere have been studies that have shown some positive associations between emotional intelligence and work performance (e.g. Dulewicz, Young, & Dulewicz, 2005; Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006) as discussed earlier and given the concept of EI was popularised and widely made known through series of eccentric articles (Gibbs, 1995) and trade books (Goleman, 1995;1998) it is not surprising that EI has been accepted and well received among military curriculum developers worldwide *(to name a few, New Zealand Forces, Canadian Forces, Australian Forces, US Air Forces and Singaporean Forces).
However we need to be cautious when applying the concept of EI to the militarycurriculum. In the following, I will discuss some of the pitfalls of EI.
Many researchers have expressed opinions about the scientific viability of emotional intelligence. For example EI is branded as an elusive and a vague concept (Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998, p. 898) and more myth than science (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002).
The definitions of EI proposed in the literature are not conceptually coherent. Conceptualisations of EI range from an ability for processing information that is applied to emotion (Mayer, Caruso Salovey, 2000) to a complex interaction of qualities of emotions, mood, personality, and social orientation applied in both interpersonal and intrapersonal situations (Bar-On, 2000). Goleman (1995) on the other hand conceptualises EI as all those positive skills that are not IQ.
So is EI a set of abilities, skills, competencies or complex interactions of personality traits and emotions?
As a result this confusion would pose a threat for us as curriculum developers. Shall we usethe Goleman (1995) or Mayer, et al. (2000) or Bar-On (1997) concept of EI?
Whose measures shall we adopt then?
The literature is also not consistent in reporting the association of EI and leadership effectiveness.
For example, Cherniss and Goleman (2001) suggests that emotional intelligence provides the basis of competencies important for managers in almost any job(Cherniss & Goleman, 2001). This claim however seems to be very extreme and needs further empirical testing. It is acknowledged over the years that one aspect of the situation influencing skill importance is a manager’s position in the authority hierarchy of organisation(Yulk, 2002). As a result, it is difficulty to argue the effect of EI on job outcomes will be the same across job categories (Wong & Law, 2002).
Another study suggeststhat, if job performance is not attained through cognitive intelligence, it can be attained through emotional intelligence (Cote & Miners, 2006). This finding contradicts Lam and Kirby (2002) that found “understanding emotions of others did not contribute to individual cognitive based performance over and above the level of attributable to general intelligence” (Lam & Kirby, 2002).
Lingstone, Nadjiwon-Foster and Smithers (2002) emphasis on the importance of emotional intelligence in the leadership process is apparent but later admit that their view has not been empirically examined in past research (Livingstone, Najjiwon-Foster, & Smithers, 2002).
EI in Military Curriculum
Given both sides of arguments underpinning the concept EI in the literature, thorough deliberations should be taken in adopting the concept into the curriculum. In the following I attempt to provide some strategies in employing EI into the military education and training curriculum.
EI Constructs
While the definitions of EI are often varied for different researchers, they nevertheless tend to be complimentary rather than contradictory (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). The literature is consistent in reporting that EI has roots in the concept of social intelligence that was first identified by Thorndike in 1920 and EI comprises of combination of the intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence of individual (Goleman, 1998; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 2000; Lam, Wong & Song, 2004; Abraham, 2007). Researchers also agree that EI meets standards of traditional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). By that they mean that EI meets three broad criteria. First EI test items can be operationalised in such a fashion that there are more or less correct answers. Second EI shows specific patterns of correlation similar to those of known intelligence and finally EI should develop with age (Goleman, 1995: Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). There is also ample empirical evidence to show that EI is different from personality traits.
It is clear that the concept and domain of EI have been gradually accepted in numerous studies (Davies et al., 1998; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999; 2004; Law, Wong & Song, 2004; Chrusciel, 2006).Given the confusion over the definition and domain of EI constructs in the past, I believe that it would be beneficial to the curriculum developers to adopt a mutually acceptable definition of the construct and to develop more standardised measures according to this definition. Knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions and recognising emotions in others are the basic dimensions of EI constructs.
EI Does Not Work in Isolation
In their study, Lam and Kirby (2002) found that understanding emotions of others did not contribute to individual cognitive based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence. This is not a surprising finding because although EI is distinct from cognitive intelligence, the two types of psychological processes are interrelated. In fact past research has implicitly and explicitly proposed that emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence relate to job performance in independent and complementary linear ways (Goleman, 1998). Emotional intelligence does not become a stronger predictor of task performance as cognitive intelligence decreases (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000).
This implies that feeding emotional skills alone into the curriculumwithout the combination of cognitive skills would not increase the ability of military leaders.
What level of leadership in Military should we provide with EI?