Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER October 30, 2017 INSIGHT 19 I took an EI test and realized I'm kind of a jerk If you're a leader, you need to improve your emotional intelligence to be successful Emotional intelligence matters. Higher emo- tional intelligence (also referred to as EI or EQ) can lead to better performance, better pay and greater overall success, it can im- prove your relationships, and even help pre- vent you from being manipulated. But many of us tend to think we have high emotional intelligence. That was definitely true for me. I especially thought I had high emotional intelligence from a leadership perspective, having spent many years supervising and managing manufacturing teams. To fi nd out for sure, I talked with Steven Stein, founder and CEO of Multi-Health Systems (MHS) in Toronto, a company that helps improve leadership skills and emotional intelligence for Fortune 500 companies, the military, government and profes- sional sports teams. First, I took the EQ-i 2.0, a 15-minute psychometric assess- ment that measures emotional intelligence and how it impacts people and the workplace. It's a scientifi cally validated test that helps identify strengths and weak- nesses in leadership abilities. e test was simple and easy to take. ere were a series of state- ments and I clicked the appro- priate "sometimes," "always" or "never" prompts. en came the harder part — seeing my results. I received a 27-page report de- tailing my specifi c results, show- ing me how I compared to other leaders, providing insights into each aspect of emotional intelli- gence, and describing ways I could work on improving areas where I'm particularly weak (or strong). Stein picked out three ar- eas where I ranked relatively high and three areas needing improvement. Here are my top strengths: Independence: I tend to make my own decisions, go my own way, and do my own thing. I sometimes take advice from oth- ers, but largely I make my own decisions. at makes sense since I don't lead teams. When I did, I like to think I often sought input and feedback. But still: I could benefi t from more input and more advice. I don't have all the answers. So while independence came out as a strength, it's also a weakness. I want — and need — to actively get advice from people I respect. Impulse control: Relatively few leaders have impulse control as one of their top three strengths, according to Stein. For example, entrepreneurs tend to be more impulsive. On the other hand, corporate leaders tend to do well on impulse control because loose cannons typically don't rise through a hierarchy. is result made a lot of sense. I'm pretty good at following rou- tines. I'm good at not doing things that are not a part of my program. But I might occasionally be better served by leaping before I look, if only because blind leaps can often be fun leaps. Flexibility: Even though I like to create routines, it turns out I am fairly good at adjusting to change. I can go with a new fl ow. Flexibility is a critical strength for leaders; seeing the future is one thing, but adapting to that future is where many fall short. I agree with this one, too. When things change, I go through that "Aw, crap" moment and grieve for what once was, but I'm pretty good at adapting to new realities. I tend to think, "OK, how do I make the best of (this)?" Now, here are my biggest weaknesses: Social responsibility: I rarely think about environmental and social issues. Like, almost never. "What we're fi nding for leaders of the future," says Stein, "is this is a key area. Social responsibility will diff erentiate the high-performing leaders of tomorrow." I thought a lot about this one. When I led people, I cared a lot about their well-being (some- times too much). Had I still been in that role, I would have answered a number of questions diff erently. But I'm not, so I thought about "social responsibility" in broader terms. I don't worry about global warming, global pandemics or saving whales. I do little things, like recycling and picking up stray litter and trying to control the things I can directly control, but I don't advocate for causes. So, yeah, that's not a good look for me. Assertiveness: I tend not to speak up and voice my opinions. Partly, that's because I no lon- ger work within a hierarchy; I am not in a position to push back or step forward. When I did, I was more assertive — not always with the people who worked for me, but defi nitely with the people I reported to. In fact, my degree of "upwards" assertiveness once got me fi red. Clearly, though, assertiveness is important for leaders, and I do agree I was less assertive in certain situations, and more assertive in others than I should have been. Self-regard: According to my results, I doubt my abilities and am not always confi dent. Confi - dence is an extremely important quality for leaders — if you're not confi dent in a direction or strat- egy, how can your team be? Plus, confi dence is scientifi cally linked to success. But confi dence is a funny thing. For me, and maybe for you, confi dence is situational. Another reason I fell short in the self-regard category is I'm my own biggest critic. I don't compare myself to other people, which is a good thing, but I do compare my- self to a really high bar, which can be a bad thing. If I accomplish something, I al- low myself some satisfaction, but then I look for ways to do better next time. at does tend to keep me mov- ing forward... but it also makes me score low in self-regard. And oddly enough, I'm OK with that. I'd rather be humble than cocky. I'd rather strive for improvement than rest on laurels. Next steps Taking an emotional intelligence test is interesting, but what mat- ters more is what you do with those results. "Any assessment is incomplete without feedback and coaching," says Stein. Books and lectures can help you understand emotional intelligence, but to make improve- ments — to learn about yourself — means doing. So Stein gave me a homework assignment for social responsibility. "Stop and take a look at a situa- tion around you that might be in need," he said. "What can you do to make a diff erence in a cause you care about? at will also help you understand other people a little better too — and might help you increase your confi dence as well." So I did. I went to a local zon- ing meeting and showed support for my neighbours' concerns about a potential variance. I even spoke during the meeting (asser- tiveness) and I felt good about it (confi dence). While the proposed variance wouldn't have aff ected me much, it felt good to not only understand where other people were coming from, but to try to help them. Small thing? Abso- lutely, and that's OK. Emotional intelligence isn't something you either have or don't have. You can shape and mold your emotional intelligence. You can improve your emotional intelligence. And if you're a leader, you need to improve your emo- tional intelligence. You won't just be a better, more successful leader — you'll also be a little happier. Jeff Hayden is the owner of BlackBird Media in Harrisonburg, Va., and au- thor of e Motivation Myth, to be re- leased in January. For more informa- tion, visit Twitter @jeff _haden. Many of us tend to think we have high emotional intelligence. Terminating probationary employees Can an employer truly give notice of termination with no notice or pay in lieu? Question: Can an employer truly terminate a probationary employee with no notice or pay in lieu? Does it make a diff erence whether it's early in the probationary period or when it's almost complete? Answer: An employer is permit- ted to terminate a probationary employee within the statutory probationary period, without notice of termination or pay in lieu, for any reason that is not discriminatory. Most employment standards legislation across Canada dic- tates that an employee may be terminated without just cause in the fi rst three months of employ- ment, without notice or pay in lieu of notice. In a unionized environment, the standard to terminate a pro- bationary employee is "suitability" rather than just cause. In other words, the employer must be able to demonstrate the probationary employee is "unsuitable" and the unsuitability is not based on any discriminatory reason. Unsuitability is a low threshold, but the grounds that demonstrate unsuitability must be reasonable, and the employer must demon- strate the employee was given a fair opportunity to try to meet the requirements of the job he was hired to do. Technically, it does not mat- ter whether the termination of an employee occurs early in the pro- bationary period or just prior to the end of a probationary period. However, where a suitability stan- dard is being applied, it is easier for the employer to demonstrate the probationary employee has been given a fair opportunity to succeed in the job if he has had more time on the job to demonstrate profi - ciency (or lack of profi ciency). It is common, however, for em- ployers to impose probationary periods that are longer than the three months allowed under em- ployment standards legislation. In such cases, employers should be careful to stipulate in writing the standard upon which the em- ployee will be assessed during the probationary period (for example, a "suitability" standard rather than a "just cause" standard) and the notice or pay in lieu to which an employee will be entitled if she is dismissed during the extended probationary period. Any probationary period in an employment contract that is lon- ger than three months will trigger statutory notice of termination or pay in lieu. erefore, an em- ployer can stipulate an employee will have a six-month probation- ary period, and he will be assessed on a suitability standard during that period. But if the employee is dismissed after more than three months of employment, he will still be entitled to at least statu- tory notice of termination upon dismissal. The employer can limit any further common law liability for termination if an employee is dismissed during an extended probationary period by stipulat- ing that only statutory notice will be payable if the employee is dis- missed during the extended pro- bation (for example, after three months but before six months of service). Arguably, an employer does not have to provide common law no- tice within a probationary period that is longer than the statutory period if an extended probation- ary period is a term of the employ- ment contract. To rely on this right, an em- ployer should set out, in an off er letter or employment contract, the purpose of the probationary period and the employee's enti- tlement if terminated within the extended contractual probation- ary period. Doing so will demonstrate that an extended probationary period was a term of employment agreed to by the parties which limited common law liability for termi- nation during the probationary period. Meghan McCreary is a partner prac- tising labour and employment law at MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman in Re- gina. She can be reached at (306) 347- 8463 or mmcreary@mlt.com. Question: Can an employer truly terminate a probationary employee with no notice or pay in lieu? Does it make a diff erence whether it's early in the probationary period or when it's almost complete? Meghan McCreary TOUgHeST HR QUeSTiON Emotional intelligence matters. Higher emo- tional intelligence (also referred to as EI or EQ) can lead to better performance, better pay and greater overall success, it can im- prove your relationships, and even help pre- Jeff Hayden GUeST COMMeNTaRY

• Cover