Daniel Goleman’s research suggests that emotionally intelligent leaders are more effective than those without interpersonal sensitivity. However, his claim rests on a concept of leadership that is open to question.
Goleman’s leaders are senior executives in large organizations. Emotionally intelligent executives are required to manage large groups of people and diverse stakeholders successfully. With so much power concentrated in so few hands, trustworthy executives with sterling character are essential. This is obvious.
But leadership cannot be equated with being a senior executive. Leadership can be shown from the sidelines or bottom-up. When Martin Luther King demonstrated against segregation on buses in Montgomery, Alabama, he wanted to show leadership to government and the general public. His leadership was successful when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such discrimination unconstitutional.
The same can be said of Mahatma Gandhi promoting Indian independence from Britain and Nelson Mandela campaigning to end white rule in South Africa. All of these leaders had their followers on the street, but their leadership was only successful when those in power fell into line. None of these three leaders had any formal authority over their respective governments. Their leadership was shown from the sidelines.
These examples are instructive because they precisely parallel bottom-up leadership. When an innovative front line employee promotes a new product to senior management, this is showing leadership to people in positions of authority, just as did King, Gandhi and Mandela. The Sony employee who created Playstation is only one example.
Bottom-up leadership has nothing to do with managing a team or directly getting something done through a group of people. It is simply the successful promotion of a change in direction. Implementation is a separate phase. The person showing such leadership may not be interested or sufficiently skilled to manage people or a complex implementation project.
Promoting a new direction can be done with a wide range of influencing tactics. Some might be emotionally intelligent but they could also be simply factual or even blunt and abrasive. Showing leadership upwards does not entail responsibility for managing people so emotional intelligence is not essential. It is only one of many ways of influencing senior management. Conversely, being an executive means occupying a role. Anyone in a formal role, even a lighthouse keeper, must be trustworthy. But leadership is an act, not a role. Leadership itself does not entail holding a position of any sort. This doesn’t mean that emotional intelligence is not useful. It is only a way to enhance a leader’s influencing skills.
Organizations that depend on innovation for success need youthful, rebellious types who challenge the status quo, who have the courage of their convictions. Emotional intelligence is important for all formal roles, but leadership, not being a role, can be shown without such character traits. Daniel Goleman once said that emotional intelligence was much the same thing as maturity, a condition that is not normally associated with rebelliousness and creativity. Maturity is fine for executives but it can block the youthful rebelliousness on which bottom-up leadership depends.
