Emotional Intelligence is a Crucial Factor for Teamwork

Many companies interview candidates in various ways, but, as Adele B. Lynn explains in her book The EQ Interview, the real solution is not a large number of interviews, but their quality.

Prepared by: Vanja Figenwald
[email protected]

Hiring new employees can be a very uncertain decision. A promising candidate can turn out to be a real disaster with far-reaching consequences, leaving behind frustrated colleagues, strained client relationships, and a swift departure filled with mutual regret and accusations. To improve their chances of hiring new staff, many companies interview candidates in various ways. However, as Adele B. Lynn explains in her book The EQ Interview, the real solution is not a large number of interviews – better interviews are needed, those that measure candidates’ emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence, abbreviated as EQ, ‘contributes to an individual’s overall success by 24 to 69 percent,’ says Lynn. Some jobs require more emotional intelligence than others, but few do not offer an advantage to those with at least a solid EQ. For managers, for example, this ability is crucial, as well as for any job that requires compromise and work in dynamic, creative teams.

‘After all, what does it matter if a software engineer is a workaholic if he alienates his colleagues?’ Lynn asks. ‘Or, what is the benefit of in-depth market analysis if a manager cannot see how his behavior demoralizes subordinates and drives them to seek other jobs?’

Three Aspects of EQ

There are several aspects of emotional intelligence, but identifying the following three during a job interview is most important for determining a candidate’s EQ level, or for eliminating those who would likely cause more harm than good.
The first aspect is self-awareness and self-discipline. The candidate understands the needs and desires that drive him and how they affect his behavior. He controls his emotions so that any fear, anger, or anxiety does not affect his colleagues, meaning he does not lose control over things. The second aspect is ‘reading’ others and recognizing one’s own impact on them. The candidate has a highly developed emotional and social ‘radar,’ so he can sense the impact of his words and actions on colleagues. The last key characteristic to pay attention to is the ability to learn from one’s own mistakes. The candidate is able to acknowledge his mistakes, reflect on them critically, and learn something from them.

What Shapes Behavior

Here is how to determine the above and distinguish essential elements from candidates’ responses. The advice is applicable to managers who must talk to colleagues outside their units to determine if those individuals can be included in cross-functional teams. Everyone employed in an organization must be able to distinguish their moods, feelings, and deeper emotional needs that drive them and understand how these shape their behavior. Most people can identify their mood (I feel this way) and feelings (I feel this or that), but fewer can articulate strong emotional desires that shape their behavior and identity, such as the need for recognition, hunger for power and status, or desire for popularity. Ante is, therefore, a manager in a medium-sized company specializing in consumer products. It is most important for him to always be right, but he is unaware of this need and the fact that it makes him arrogant, defensive, and cautious. When a project stalls or a client is dissatisfied, Ante is unable to collaborate with his subordinates, boss, and colleagues to reach a compromise and find a solution to the problem. Instead, he focuses on washing his hands of any blame, which certainly does not help in a situation that requires a quick solution.
Besides understanding his feelings, an emotionally intelligent person is also capable of regulating them, meaning controlling his behavior. When scared or anxious, such a person will be self-aware enough to recognize how to express those feelings non-verbally, allowing him to use more energy to convey calmness and optimism. Or, when angry, that person will have enough self-control not to yell at colleagues and subordinates.

The Ability to ‘Read’ Others

Since a large part of a manager’s job involves collaborating with other people, the ability to ‘read’ others can make the difference between success and failure. Managers must know how to recognize how their behavior affects others. Individuals with high EQ are skilled persuaders and motivators because they know how to ‘read’ other people and adapt to them. To uncover this ability, you should ask candidates to describe a situation where something was said that negatively affected colleagues and how they understood it, then whether they ever found themselves in a situation they felt required them to adjust their behavior, how they understood it, and what they did.

Lynn mentions an example of an interview where a candidate provided several examples and said that each time someone else had to point out to him that he needed to change his behavior. Simply put, he could not recognize his mistakes. Another candidate, however, shared opposite examples and got the job.

Learning from Mistakes

Misreading a client can be fatal for relationships, Lynn emphasizes. One financial advisor directed a client to a cheaper arrangement, assessing his financial situation as modest, which offended the client and caused him to leave. Mistakes or complete failures offer opportunities for growth, and thus individuals with high EQ can learn from them. Here, it is also necessary to seek positive causes in the past experiences of the given candidate. It will help to answer the question of whether they ever found themselves in a situation that required a change in behavior, how they resolved it, and what lessons they learned from that experience, then to describe a situation where they realized they were on the wrong path: How did they understand it, what did they do, and what did they learn from it?
In this case, there is an example of two female candidates with opposing stories. One demonstrated the ability to reflect on mistakes and offered solutions and learned lessons from what was done, while the other candidate continuously explained how, in her case, it was about incompetent colleagues, demanding bosses, and impatient clients. The job, of course, went to the first one.