I’ve always been a big fan of Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (EI) model. I believe the concepts espoused by Goleman are critical to understanding how a leader will apply the advocacy and inquiry approach to decision-making.
To understand this correlation, let’s start with effective decision-making. Effective decision-making requires data analysis, effective listening and reflection, and use of a systematic process that weighs the pros and cons of alternatives. For a person to be effective in listening and reflection she or he must understand and control their own emotions. Without this control, a person may overly advocate one position over another, or become so entrenched in a specific viewpoint that the necessary questions go unasked.
Advocacy and inquiry provides a rather simple decision-making model, but one that may be problematic. This model includes two approaches: advocacy and inquiry. The advocacy approach can be viewed as a person taking an intransigent viewpoint, that is, entrenched in a willingness to defend their viewpoint and persuade others. Conversely, inquiry can be viewed as the person’s willingness to gain more insight into an issue, an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the issue.
When taken together, advocacy and inquiry defines a continuum or state in which the decision-maker exists as she or he tries to navigate toward a decision. The decision-maker can slide along this continuum employing varying levels of advocacy and inquiry.
However, here comes my warning: If the decision-maker focuses excessively on advocacy she or he will alienate those participants who are needed to ensure an effective decision. On the other hand, and at the other extreme, the decision-maker who excessively focuses on inquiry may become muddled in data gathering and analysis thereby becoming indecisive.
The decision-maker will need to determine the level of advocacy and inquiry required and based on the interpersonal relationships involved. For example, in a conversation where the decision-maker needs to gain a better understanding of a participant’s viewpoint, inquiry will be high. In turn, there could be a conversation where the decision-maker needs to share her or his viewpoint on this issue. Here, advocacy will be high.
A leader will naturally apply advocacy and inquiry based on the situation. Where it becomes difficult for the leader is when his or her emotions become entangled in the process. Left unchecked, a leader’s emotions can prompt the leader to an excessive state of advocacy.
But what will make a leader be intransigent and thereby overly focus on advocating a specific viewpoint? Most likely, it will be their inability to understand and control their own emotions.
Goleman’s model states that a leader needs to be able to understand his or her emotions and understand the impact such emotions have on the environment, control his or her emotions and as necessary change emotions based on the situation, to understand the emotion’s of others and react to them accordingly. For Goleman, a leader who is able to attain a high level of emotional intelligence will excel at motivating others, managing conflict, and making decisions.
It is therefore simple enough: To properly employ the advocacy and inquiry decision-making approach, a leader must have a certain high level of emotional intelligence. Without it, the leader is doomed to excessively advocate a position and thereby alienate those participants who are needed to ensure an effective decision.
