SRLS Results & Emotional Intelligence

SRLS stands for ‘Socially Responsible Leadership Scale,’ and it is a test that I took. My results included notable surprises, strengths, and weaknesses.

In my fraternity, I started noticing the hierarchy of the executives, and began wondering what our group would be like if we had different leadership styles. I also noticed how my classmates behaved, and began extrapolating and making assumptions as to WHY they’re behaving a certain way based on what I learned. I’ve learned that my classroom experience has immediate real-life application. One example of that would be the relationship between my mom and dad: my dad always manages the money, so my mom trusts him with making the best financial decisions. It feels as if the world makes better sense now that I understand the root of leadership: emotional intelligence.

The core of socially responsible leadership lies in what we know as the seven ‘C’s, and they reinforce one ofeddedd the biggest ‘C’s of all: Change. Change implies that in order to lead, one must challenge the status quo. These seven ‘C’s are Citizenship, Common Purpose, Collaboration, Controversy, Consciousness, Congruence and Commitment. The first one implies that the community around the leader matters, because it can either help or hurt the leader’s cause. The second one addresses the relationship within a group that backs the leader’s cause, and expects trust and acceptance within their team. The third one takes advantage of diverse opinions on a given matter in order to bridge gaps in the understanding of certain issues, and to provide simple solutions that others may find creative. The fourth one ensures that these diverse opinions will yield a positive agreement rather than a negative disagreement. The fifth one is designed to make each member of the team aware of their own biases, personality traits, individual abilities and disabilities, emotional stances on certain issues, and more. The sixth one gives the team a sense of stability on certain issues, such as a Democrat who is expected to remain loyal to his political ideology, or a Muslim who is expected not to convert to Christianity. The seventh one is surrounded by purpose, energy and emotions that keep the agent of change relevant to the present day.

I think that the most important C is Commitment. It’s the hardest to maintain, and the most provocative when you’re able to control it. Commitment means that your members deeply care about a problem, and they’re actively seeking a solution. Whether it’s formal (meetings, dress code, media reports) or informal (casual discussions and open forums), commitment ensures that an issue is solved until the end, rather than be left half-way, which is how so many issues are solved today: half-assedly (pardon my French). I think that the least important C is Citizenship, because it requires the least attention. In a way, citizenship is self-regulated: those who care about your cause join you, and those who don’t care about your cause ignore it. Likewise, you appreciate those who support you, and you ignore those who oppose you. A team shouldn’t devote a lot of time to citizenship, because then they may not have enough time to address things that they have more control over. Whether others perceive you as an agent of positive change or negative change is largely beyond your control; furthermore, if you wish to change the public’s stance on an issue, then that’s something you would do via Collaboration and Controversy, not Citizenship.

The biggest challenge in becoming an agent of change lies in getting people to listen to you and to act on your behalf. This problem should always yield a positive result, and here’s how. If a leader seeks changing status quo, and they reach out to the community and receive little support, then it’s likely that the community doesn’t care about change. However, if they receive a lot of responses, the leader himself will manifest into an image of unity among those who also seek that change. When a leader like Tony Hsieh (Zappos.com, CEO, sold to Amazon for $1.2 billion) decided to change the way people buy shoes online by delivering happiness in every package, he had many obstacles to overcome; however, by getting people on the same page about his goals, he quickly learned that others shared his passion with him. Becoming an agent of change is difficult because sometimes we can’t articulate what it is that we want, or if we can articulate it, then it might not sound appealing enough to inspire others. That’s why the biggest challenge lies in selling your message, so that others will not only listen, but care and take action with you.

At the beginning of my studies, I thought that emotional intelligence is the core of leadership. I studied it while in Italy this past summer. I loved the concept of applying knowledge to intangible things that may be hard to pick up on (e.g., tone of voice, posture, eye contact). I was surprised that the material on leadership that is out there isn’t focusing more on emotional intelligence. I still believe that being able to “read” past what people say, to get to the core of how they really feel, is the essence of good leadership. A few of our past class assignments have breached this topic, so I would like to address them specifically.

This past September, I was introduced to basic frameworks that have shaped the study of leadership. This was a great “base” for my future studies, but after learning various leadership approaches, I realized that some are simply outdated (Great Man Approach). I began to focus on the issue of, “what is it about human relationships that empowers leaders?” Under the assumption of good emotional intelligence, I began to agree with the Behavioral and Contingency approaches. Upon closer examination, I realized that Reciprocal and Transforming theories have more merit, because they place a greater weight on mutual respect and understanding. While we were taught that Followership is a separate theory, I believe that it’s an aspect of personality that can be applied across various models.

When I learned about “French & Raven’s Taxonomy of Power,” I realized why Coercion, Legitimate and Expert powers are not as well-respected as Reward and Referent powers were. The latter two emphasize the need of the leader being “on the same level” as their followers in order to connect with them. Those who coerce us into action, boss us around, or claim to know more than us, tend to be mean people. This is the reason why so few people are usually remembered for being great teachers or bosses. When I think about it, the people I remember most in my life (besides family) were those who were able to connect to me in some way.

After nearly 4 months of studying leadership theory in-depth, I still believe in the importance of developing emotional intelligence. I believe that it can never be overstated, as it’s the center of any good leader’s arsenal of supporters. A good agent of change needs to know their supporters – beyond their rhetoric and public statements. What really bothers those whom you are trying to help? Are there easier solutions than what you may be thinking? As an agent of change, I would begin my path to leadership with a discussion. An open-ended forum may start out humbly, but it can never hurt to know how people feel. The most important thing that I’ve taken away from homework reading and in-class activities is to not be afraid to get up close and personal with people. In fact, I believe it’s the only way to truly lead.

As I continue to notice emotional intelligence – and don’t forget lack thereof – with my fraternity, with my classmates, and with my mom and dad, I try to foster more knowledge about body language and other skills. From online articles to self-improvement books, it’s a topic that doesn’t stop fascinating me. For now, I think that the Social Change Model should remain as-is. I wish to explore it further. Thanks to some C’s – committment and collaboration – I will continue to get better at understanding what others are experiencing inside, no matter what they’re showing on the outside.