We’ll be working through the Unmanaged methodology all week, discussing where the systems fail, the importance of regulating yourself and how you can protect yourself, whether you are a manager or an individual contributor. Today, we are talking about emotional intelligence. This morning we looked at emotional intelligence at the individual level — what happens in a single conversation when you walk in without it. This post scales that up. When you are in a position of power, or close to it, the absence of emotional intelligence doesn’t just affect one conversation. It affects entire teams, entire implementations, entire cultures. You’ll know it’s missing because people will tell you — not always directly. You’ll get complaints that a decision didn’t consider the people it affected. You’ll get reactions to a new policy that you didn’t anticipate. You’ll spend more time managing the fallout from an announcement than you spend on the actual work it was meant to enable. When you hold power, people are watching how you use it. And they notice when the humans in the room weren’t part of your thinking. Here’s an example of what that looks like at scale. A leader stands in front of his workforce and says: “Some of you may lose your jobs. Some of you won’t. We might sell the East campus. We might not. We’re exploring our options.” He believed he was being transparent. What he actually did was plant a seed of anxiety in every person in that room — and then leave it there. For the four months between that meeting and the restructuring announcement, productivity declined, absenteeism climbed, and the dominant conversation at every level of the organization was some version of: have you heard anything? Do you think your area will be affected? The uncertainty didn’t inform people. It consumed them. Transparency is valuable. But transparency without preparation isn’t a gift to your workforce — it’s an exposure of the fact that decisions haven’t been made and their impact hasn’t been considered. What that leader communicated, unintentionally, was that the people in the room were not part of his thinking. The communication meant to inform became the source of more confusion, more stress, and more obstacles than the restructuring itself. The missing piece — in that room, and in most decisions that land badly — is the people. How they will react. What matters to them. What they need to absorb change without losing their footing. Analyzing that impact, both operationally and emotionally, before you communicate is not a soft skill. It is a leadership competency. The following seven questions will help you assess whether you have what you need before you walk into a high-stakes communication. They map directly to Goleman’s five pillars of emotional intelligence. The list may look long, but with practice these become a quick internal check rather than a formal exercise — and the time they save on the back end far exceeds the time they take on the front end. 1. What is the operational impact on each stakeholder? (Empathy, Social Skills) Will this decision increase or decrease their workload? Does it undermine work already in progress? Are there existing conflicts that could complicate implementation? You cannot communicate with empathy about an impact you haven’t mapped. 2. What does the organization’s history tell you? (Motivation, Empathy) Has this type of decision been made before — and how did it land? Is there a history of poor communication, broken promises, or leadership failures that your workforce is carrying into this conversation? That context shapes how your message will be received, regardless of how well you deliver it. 3. Have you sought out perspectives beyond your own immediate circle? (Self-Awareness) Whose voice is missing from your planning? Who will be affected by this decision who hasn’t been asked about it? The blind spots in high-stakes decisions are usually the ones nobody thought to check. 4. Have you genuinely considered the feedback you’ve received? (Self-Regulation) Not processed it, not noted it — actually sat with it. Active listening means letting feedback change your thinking, not just acknowledging that you heard it. If the feedback hasn’t shifted anything, ask yourself why. 5. Do you understand the work that will be affected? (Empathy, Social Skills) Do you know what the people impacted by this decision actually do, day to day? Do you understand what they need to function well? You cannot accurately assess impact on work you don’t understand. 6. How has this workforce responded to change in the past? (Motivation, Social Skills) What patterns exist? What has landed well, and what has created resistance? There is almost always data here if you’re willing to look at it — and it will tell you more about how to position this decision than almost anything else. 7. What are your own triggers in this situation? (Self-Regulation) What kinds of pushback are most likely to provoke a reaction in you? What is your plan for managing that reaction when it shows up? This question is last not because it matters least, but because it’s the one most leaders skip — and it’s often the one that determines whether the whole conversation holds together. Walking into a high-stakes decision fully informed about its human impact doesn’t guarantee a smooth landing. But it changes the odds significantly. And it sends a message to the people in the room — before you’ve said a word — that they were part of your thinking. That’s what emotionally intelligent leadership looks like in practice. Not softness. Not indecision. Preparation. For more resources and information, please visit unmanagedpeople.com. Book a free consultation. Submit an anonymous question. Contact Elizabeth This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit elizabetharnott1.substack.com
