Emotions and Leadership

In this Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence has the potential to contribute to effective leadership in multiple ways.

Investigating how leaders’ capabilities in the emotion domain or their emotional intelligence contribute to their effectiveness certainly seems worthy of future empirical research and theorizing.

In Narcissist Personality and Emotional Intelligence – meth addition treatment,

The last facet of EI is the ability to connect people and ideas, which the NPD possess a kind of street-smart EI. They are acutely aware of whether people are with them wholeheartedly and know who they can use and can be brutally exploitative.

How would one leverage emotional intelligence in order to contribute to effective leadership?

Here is my reflection on emotional intelligence.

How would emotional intelligence meet standards for an intelligence?  See my next post.

On Research – Sensemaking

I enjoy this interview on David Snowden on : When Einstein and Shakespeare meet

Here is our conversation on Facebook:

Ken Anderson

thanks John. very interesting insights. what do you make of it?
about an hour ago ·
John Mak

I have to reflect more deeply about it. Narratives and narrative research are great means of understanding people’s psychology, especially when people can talk about the “complexities”, inner thoughts through metaphors to reflect their subtle ideas (the tacit knowledge). Would this depend on the way how these narratives are conducted too? As David mentioned, many “interviews” or narratives were collected through “kids”, “students” who were not pre-conceived with any hypothesis, to avoid any biasing. The interviewees could then make sense of their own narratives based on their addition of pictures, videos, podcast – voices (recordings), and the gathering of these narratives would form the basis of “knowledge management” even for businesses – hospitals, health care, military & defence, etc. I think this is a novel approach, as Roy has also shared this methodology with me on a number of occasions. I could see the potential of this way of research in social networks.
My questions are: ” To what extent would people be able to express their thoughts clearly in the narrative – story?” Why is this critical? Would people “inflate, exaggerate, or make up stories in order to impress the interviewer or to impress the employers/researchers?”? How would people speak with truth, honesty, openness in social networks? Are there any thorough research which could reveal the level of “truth, honesty and openness in social networks?
How about you? Would you make further use of it? Your research on police officer seem to provide further insights into this “sense making”.
about an hour ago ·
Ken Anderson

yes, I will have to look into ‘sensemaker’ a little more. It seems possible to be a way to get at complex solutions/predictions. For now I have posted the links to the video and his blog-site in my current course on narrative inquiry, for the other students to look at. Thanks for the link!
about an hour ago
My pleasure. I am interested in more “informal research” through casual conversation and narratives (story telling) over the spaces and media here (FB, twitters, blogs) which could be a far richer way of learning & research (Just in time JIT) that would overcome the “strict pedagogical approach” in traditional hypothesis – survey – findings - analysis – discussion based on a  scientific approach.  However, it seems pre-mature to rely on the one methodology to approach an issue. The multi group-sense making approach with triangulation would be more useful to study real life problems, and develop novel thinking and thus arrive to emergent learning.
I think there would also be diversity of “opinions” when conducting such narratives over networks, and they are likely based on power laws – with a long tail. When such narratives are collected from particular communities (organisations, groups and teams) – ie. like-minded people would contribute more positive experiences, while dissenters would use narratives to voice their grievances and complaints. Would this be what business be looking for? In accordance to Complexity Theory concepts, those which could boost the morality of employees would be amplified, & those which would lower the morality of employees would be dampened and constrained. Would that be the main learning that we could have with social learning – that social networks would nullify the negative effects of certain actors due to the Power Laws phenomenon?

#CritLit2010 On Conversation

I would like to reflect on this video on Conversation by Stephen Downes

Stephen shares his views on conversation and critical capacity, in particular:

How to live meaningfully?

- What is your purpose of life? What are your core values?

How to value yourself?

- as important

- as worthy of developing

- to learn to live meaningfully

On Critical Capacity

- How to express?

- How to understand and comprehend?

- How to reason?

- Understanding learning, creativity, science etc. and How to form the structure of a language?

- Conversation with the world, with others, with instructors

- These involve many new syntax, grammar, semantics, pragmatics

Having these skills to pursuit, comprehend and adapt to environment, and these forming the survival skills.

What do these mean to me in our conversation?

Here is a conversation that I have with Matthias on Contiguity and outboard brain :

You have got it spot on. I noted Stephen mentioned over here on slide 14 of Pedagogical Foundations for Personal Learning:
* Social knowledge is not personal knowledge
* Personal Knowledge Management = Learning
* Social Knowledge Management = Research
I also think Stephen is relating to knowledge as pattern recognition, but that he is now referring to such knowledge as a separate “entity” with knowledge at personal level being learning, while at a social level being research.

My question is: “how to distinguish between learning from research?” Can learning and research be integrated in my mind? When I develop PLE and reflect upon the conversation we have with others, then such “social learning” would form part of my personal learning, especially when I form a “mind map” linking the concepts shared and discussed with others through the conversation, and thus make sense of meaning emerged through the discourse over social media/space.

“Discussions about connectivism seem to diverge and break into two parts: One focussing on the complexity of the internal/ neural level, and the other one focussing on the personal/ external level (which is often misunderstood and simplified down to the idea that you don’t need to know anything once you know the “pipes” connecting to persons or resources who know” I am not that sure that is the case. I think we need to know something even if we know the pipes connecting to persons or resources, only that the emphasis is now on the pipes (connections)as the content (the information or “knowledge” ) that resides on the node could change, in respond to changing environment. This requires critical capacity to re-evaluate the content, the pipe (connection), to act and decide accordingly by making adjustments to decisions, in order to adapt and respond to changes.

Further reflection:

I think the personal learning would be looking at the outside world with a personal view (i.e. focussing on the complexity of the internal/neural level).  However, if I were to better understand the world views from a macroscopic view, then I would need to rely on crowdsourcing (Google, Yahoo, or Delicious search, social learning, “networked learning through communities of practice”.  These would provide me with a better representation of the external level of learning (i.e the research as cited by Stephen).  Connectivism could provide such connections, links and conversations, if we perceive these differences at different levels.

Are these the “world views” from a “community of practice points of views”?

In this Neuroscientists can predict your behavior better than you can

“In general, they are taking simple views of how different parts of the brain work and are saying it is important to turn a particular part of the brain on when advertising, and therefore you should do more of this or that,” Lieberman said. “For instance, they will say you want to activate the amygdala because that is the brain’s emotion center. Typically they are not looking at the relationship between what happens in the brain when someone is exposed to an advertisement and what actually are the outcomes that you care about. For example, do people change their behavior? Does someone spread the message to others? Instead, they are giving generic analysis, and my guess is that the vast majority of the advice they are giving is not accurate.

“To really understand the relationship between the brain’s responses to brands and persuasive materials and desirable outcomes, you actually have to measure the outcomes that are desirable and not just say what should work,” he said. “There are many folks claiming to be neuroscientists who have read a little introductory neuroscience, and that is not enough expertise. It’s almost infinitely more complicated than that.”

How would people change their behavior in social conversation?  Should we focus on neuroscience in order to better understand about “personal learning”?

We could more easily control our own personal learning (with PLE), as any such learning is referred to our “brain”, though we are trying to explain such learning based on connections of neurons, and thus networks when thinking and reflecting.

Finally, would the key to the above be Conversation: with others and myself (through thinking and reflection)?

Postscript: Refer to this representative student on sharing of simple and complex connectivism by Stephen Downes