By Dr Ali Qassim Jawad, Prof Andrew Kakabadseand Mohamed Omar Abdulla/Abu Dhabi
When told of the French peasantry’s rioting over scarce bread, the French Queen Marie Antoinette allegedly responded: “Let them eat cake.” This kind of specious, one-dimensional reasoning survives today the world over.
Government leaders work in complex, technology-rich, fast-paced environments and economies, struggling to deal with previously non-existent challenges. Contemporary governance calls for a varied and versatile cognitive approach to problems, and this problem-solving framework should be based on four “intelligences”.
When harnessed and utilised in a balanced fashion, only these intelligences provide an individual with the holistic and dynamic mind capable of analysing and addressing the world’s problems.
A recent study into effective transformational leadership in the public sector sheds light on the nature, inter-relationship and relative importance of these intelligences. The authors show that high-performing leaders simultaneously employ four key leadership intelligences, referred to as the 4Qs, to achieve effective transformational change: cognitive intelligence (IQ); emotional intelligence (EQ); political intelligence (PQ); and moral intelligence (MQ). Much like DNA’s four constituent nucleic acids create the substance that works as the framework for human life, these 4Q’s come together to inform every aspect of leadership.
IQ is a leader’s ability to acquire knowledge, reflecting a leader’s rationalisation abilities; EQ is a leader’s ability to understand and manage both his or her own emotions, and those of others; PQ is a leader’s ability to navigate a way forward through diverse stakeholders’ agendas; and MQ is a leader’s ability to understand his or her own value system and draw on this to determine moral boundaries as a behavioural guide.
These intelligences are the DNA of effective leadership– the unconscious or conscious controls on the actions we take in response to external demands.
The study tested this concept on elite leaders (ministers, undersecretaries and C-level executives) in the UK, Australia, and the Gulf region. It was applied on four critical levels of leadership according to work domains: Delivery; General Management; Strategic; and Governance.
Work domains reflect different clusters of work practices, ranging from relatively simple tasks and activities that require rational thinking and teamwork at the “delivery” level, through to the complex positioning of concepts and subtle influencing of stakeholders at the “governance” level.
Think of a visa processor in the ministry of foreign affairs in the former case, and the foreign minister himself in the latter. Leaders working at different levels and in separate work domains require different combinations of the 4Qs.
Variations in the combination of intelligences required in each work domain reflect differences in the nature of the challenges confronting the leaders. These combinations change according to seniority and the strategic and operational considerations faced.
While a high level of IQ appears necessary at each level, the degree to which leaders are required to utilise their PQ would appear to increase as they rise through the organisational hierarchy. In contrast, leaders appear to draw most on their EQ at the General Management level, and less so at the Strategic and Governance levels.
High performing strategic leaders must possess the ability to analyse and to skilfully handle conflicting agendas (i.e. IQ and PQ). Being a team player is important but not critical at this level. In government especially,a high degree of PQ and EQ allows civil servants to best understand the interests and reactions of all the involved parties – the most important being the citizenry.
Looking at this more closely, it could be said that IQ, EQ and PQ are “value free” intelligences. A leader with high cognitive, emotional, and political quotients can apply these for good or bad aims. Moral intelligence, on the other hand, by definition is “value led” and provides a checking function or conscience.
This checking function should not be seen as a restraint, but instead as an asset allowing a manager to focus on the long-term credibility or success of an organisation, sometimes, at the expense of short-term gains. Fred Kiel, an expert in the field, addressed the issue of MQ in his book Moral Intelligence 2.0. In it the author shows that leaders with high MQ provide a greater return to shareholders than leaders with less MQ.
According to Kiel, moral intelligence means the ability to lead with integrity, responsibility, forgiveness, and compassion. Integrity yields trust, responsibility inspires, forgiveness promotes innovation, and compassion breeds organisational loyalty.
A lack of MQ is recognisable in recent years in the collapse of a number of major organisations led by leaders who were intellectually intelligent (IQ), people oriented (EQ), and politically smart (PQ) and yet failed to deliver sustainable value. This can, in part, be attributed to a lack of moral intelligence.
There are many leaders on Wall Street and other financial centres, as well as in government organisations around the world, with a demonstrably low level of MQ. Bernie Madoff, for instance, was no doubt a smart man, a smooth talker and an expert at navigating a landscape of regulators, investors, and journalists over the course of several decades. But an enormous lack of moral intelligence ultimately revealed the unsustainable foundation of his empire.
Without moral perspective, the ups and downs of governing will continue to elicit ill-conceived policies. The failure of social, political, and business leadership preceding the financial crisis, reminds us of the urgent need to revise current leadership models for both business and government organisations.
While one can debate whether IQ is inherited or developed over time, the evidence suggests that EQ, PQ and MQ can all be cultivated through a life or career. A leadership model emphasising the nurturing of these intelligences is timely and will fill serious gaps by instilling in the next generation a balanced and informed mental framework for addressing policy problems.
In a world where the political, social, and economic landscape changes rapidly and without warning, all leaders – particularly in the public sector – must possess the fundamental building blocks that ensure sustainable results.
♦ Dr Ali Qassim Jawad is an INSEAD Scholar, Prof Andrew Kakabadse is Professor of International Management Development at Cranfield University and Mohamed Omar Abdulla is undersecretary of the Department of Economic Development, Abu Dhabi.
