No. 3: Emotional Intelligence Practice for JAG Corps Leaders

Written By

Hannah Zeigler

Tags

2024-06-17

(Credit: dizain – stock.adobe.com)

No. 3

Emotional Intelligence Practice for JAG Corps Leaders

By Major Pearl K. Sandys

[E]motional intelligence is thesine qua non of leadership.1

There are very few downsides to becoming more emotionally intelligent, even for the militantly rational like some lawyers.2

Of the approximately 200-plus military occupational specialties (MOS) in the Army,3 the 27A MOS is the only one that requires a license to practice the law.4 Because of this specialized field of practice, judge advocates (JAs) are charged to deal with a wide range of issues in the Army, all of which involve communicating, negotiating, counseling, and advising.5 Especially in the fields of legal assistance and military justice,6 JAs often face moral and ethical dilemmas, which require sound judgment, competence in the law, and emotional maturity.7 To lead these JAs, the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps needs leaders who are experienced, competent, and emotionally equipped.8

As leaders and officers in the Army, JAs are expected to rely on Army leadership doctrine as outlined in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22.9 The doctrine “establishes and describes the Army profession and the foundations of Army leadership,”10 as well as “what leaders should be and do.”11 Delving further into the fundamental principles of leadership on a practical level, ADP 6-22 dedicates a chapter to that topic “Leadership in Practice.”12

While Army doctrine does “acknowledge and account for human nature,”13 ADP 6-22 does not fully address the practical aspects of leadership principles. Essentially, Army doctrine lacks the “how-to.” Doctrine is merely the “last refuge of the unimaginative,”14 unless it can be practically adopted and applied. Just like war, the legal field is much more than a “contest of wills; it is also the province of fear, passion, camaraderie, heroism, and grief.”15 In this regard, war and the legal field both stem from the domain of human emotion and, by consequence, the actions stemming from human emotion. Leadership in practice requires—at least in successful practice—an understanding of self and others within the human domain; it requires emotional intelligence (EI).

Emotional intelligence is the mechanism through which JAs can apply leadership doctrine to fit their system of values and beliefs, personality, and current professional and personal situations, while thoughtfully considering the system of values and beliefs, personalities, and professional and personal situations of their subordinates, peers, and leaders. Because understanding what EI is (or is not) is a necessary step to practicing EI in thought and action, this article begins with an overview of EI, specifically delving into Daniel Goleman’s EI model, and how it is embodied within and correlates to Army leadership doctrine.16 The article then explains how obstacles can prevent effective training and learning even though EI is adoptable and changeable. These obstacles, however, can be overcome, leading to the conclusion that because emotional competence can be learned,17 EI training should be embedded within all stages of a JA’s career development.18 Building on that proposed practical application, EI is explored within a JA’s legal practice, explaining how leaders can better understand and lead their subordinates through learning EI. The article concludes by highlighting how EI training can equip JAs to be better leaders, going beyond what is written in leadership doctrine and embracing a motivated leadership practice of increased self-awareness, empathy, and humility.

Emotional Intelligence and Army Leadership Doctrine

Emotional intelligence is “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and our relationships.”19 In other words, EI is the ability to understand and manage your own emotions and those of the people around you. In defining the concept, it is helpful to also state what it is not. Emotional intelligence is not a set of personality traits or qualities, such as agreeableness, optimism, and calm.20 Emotional intelligence is a set of “interrelated abilities”21 and the capacity to recognize “one’s and others’ emotional states to solve problems and regulate behavior.”22 Emotional intelligence is also not intelligence quotient (IQ), although “the emotional brain is as involved in reasoning as is the thinking brain.”23 Intelligence quotient is “a measure of your personal information bank—your memory, vocabulary, mathematical skills, and visual motor coordination.”24 Although IQ has been studied, researched, and tested for more than 100 years,25 studies show that IQ does not have as much significant impact on job performance, success, or leadership capability.26 Intelligence quotient is “just a threshold competence; you need it to get in the field, but it does not make you a star. It’s the emotional intelligence abilities that matter more for superior performance.”27 Consider the JAG Corps, which fosters an underlying assumption of a base-line level of legal competence in its officers: all JAs are required to have graduated from law school and hold a valid license to practice law.28 The technical skills to practice law (and underlying baseline IQ level required to graduate from law school and pass the bar), are merely “threshold capabilities.”29 Without EI, “a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader.”30

Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Competence

To understand how EI31 can serve as the conduit through which Army leadership doctrine can be put into practice, it is important to first delve into the EI framework using Daniel Goleman’s model.32 This informs how JAs might compare Army doctrine to commonly accepted norms of EI. Under Goleman’s EI model, EI is comprised of five domains: 1) self-awareness (“knowing one’s internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions”), 33 2) self-regulation (“managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources”),34 3) motivation (“emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals”),35 4) empathy (“awareness of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns”),36 and 5) social skills (“adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others”).37 Domains 1, 2, and 3 fall under what Goleman refers to as “personal competence,” which are competencies that determine “how we manage ourselves.”38 Domains 4 and 5 fall under “social competence,” which are competencies that determine “how we handle relationships.”39 Goleman lists twenty-five competencies that fall under one of those five domains.40

According to Goleman, a successful performer or leader does not need all twenty-five competencies, but only requires approximately six competencies “spread across all five areas of EI.”41 This is because these competencies are distinct, yet “interdependent” on each other, and different jobs or tasks may demand more of one competency over another.42 When EI is learned, either through experience or training (or both), it results in emotional competence—or growth in that emotional competence. Having EI “determines our potential for learning . . . self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in relationships.”43 Having a high level of EI means that a person has “excellent potential to learn” emotional competencies.44 When JAs and JA leaders utilize these emotional competencies, productively tailor them to manage their own emotions, and recognize and acknowledge the emotions of others in any given situation, they possess “emotional agility.”45

Army Leadership Doctrine and Correlating Emotional Intelligence Competencies

Army leadership doctrine already contemplates many of the EI competencies, which indicates their importance to personal leadership development. When the Army leadership requirements model is examined using Goleman’s framework, it becomes clear how Army leadership doctrine is embedded within and correlates to the EI model.46

The Army leadership requirements model, as outlined in ADP 6-22, “establishes a core set of requirements that inform leaders of the expectations for what they need to be, know, and do.”47 The model consists of two components: attributes (“Be and Know”) and competencies48 (“Do”).49 Attributes are “internal” to an individual and comprise three categories: character, presence, and intellect.50 Competencies are actions that are expected of Army leaders.51 The three competency categories are: leads, develops, and achieves.52 According to Army leadership doctrine, the difference between attributes and competencies is that competencies can be “trained and developed,” while attributes are “personal characteristics, which are molded through experience over time.”53 Under Goleman’s EI theory, however, most Army leadership attributes, if they fall within the EI domains, can also be “trained and developed” or—in other words—learned.

An examination of Army leadership attributes and competencies show that with the exception of the “expertise” attribute, all attributes and competencies fall within one or more of Goleman’s EI domains.54 Expertise, as an attribute, does not fall within an EI domain because it is in the domain of IQ.55 Accounting for this exception, there is significant overlap between Army leadership doctrine and EI domains, especially in the concept of self-awareness.56 Army doctrine specifically mentions self-awareness in the context of leadership:

Self-awareness is fundamental to understanding one’s abilities. . . . Leaders require self-awareness if they are to accurately assess their own experience and competence as well as earn the trust of those they influence. Being self-aware means seeing one’s self as viewed by others and understanding the levels of influence one is likely to have with followers.57

Self-awareness is also discussed in the context of resilience.58 Even leaders with high EI may lack self-awareness when overwhelmed by professional or personal stressors. Managing stressors or “overcoming obstacles . . . takes mental discipline and resilience.”59 Resilience, as an Army leadership attribute, falls within Goleman’s personal competence domains of self-awareness, self-regulation, and motivation.60

While ADP 6-22 does not explain how to put these attributes—such as resilience—and competencies into practice,61 the acknowledgement and learning of EI can become the “how-to.” Specifically, within the realm of a JA’s legal practice, both as a practitioner and leader, a high level of EI is required to be successful and is essential to develop a sense of personal meaning and satisfaction. Although EI levels can be enhanced through learning and training, recognizing specific obstacles that hinder learning can lead to more effective training.

Emotional Intelligence Learning and Obstacles

Psychological research, studies, and EI training programs have proven the potential for EI growth in individuals.62 These studies and programs show that EI is not rigid and can be increased with deliberate practice and training.63 Willingness and motivation to learn, empathy, and accurate self-perception open the door for higher levels of EI. On the other hand, some JAs might assume their EI levels are acceptable—and they probably are. But “[i]f you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always be where you’ve always been.”64 In the spirit of continual growth throughout JAG Corps careers, it is important to examine possible obstacles to such self-development in the realm of leadership, and address each possible roadblock in turn. The three primary obstacles to learning or expanding EI are: 1) ego,65 2) lack of empathy, and 3) inaccurate feedback from peers, subordinates, and supervisors.66

Obstacle 1: Ego

Ego is the “self” and “[w]hen properly balanced with [EI], ego can be an important pillar to success (in the form of self-confidence, assuredness, conviction, clear decision making, and more).”67 On the other hand, having too much ego means having “an exaggerated sense of self-importance.”68 This exaggeration manifests itself in several ways. First, it leads to resistance to and unacceptance of feedback69 because there is an underlying fear of vulnerability70 and shame. People who have too much ego often hide behind their positions of authority,71 surround themselves with people who will not disagree, and, instead, feed their need for self-aggrandizement. They are often blind to their weaknesses72 and underestimate how much others are observing their leadership failures.

Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance shuts out opportunities for reflection and change. People with too much ego lack self-awareness73 and often overestimate their abilities and emotional competence; they have an inaccurate perception of themselves. Although they can benefit most from EI training, they are the least likely to be aware of and acknowledge their need to manage their egos. When too much ego presents as an obstacle to learning, leaders and trainers need to spend significant time and effort emphasizing the importance and benefits of EI and accurately assess and boldly present the individual’s current state of EI.74 Having these “tough conversations”75 will be necessary to help an individual overcome this obstacle, and these conversations may also be a reality check on the individual’s ability to empathize.

Obstacle 2: Lack of Empathy76

Empathy is about connecting and “tak[ing] the perspective of someone else.”77 Empathy is not sympathy or concern.78 It is also not about making a problem go away or fixing a situation. Empathy is a “vulnerable” choice because “if I were to choose to connect with you through empathy, I would have to connect with something in myself that knows that feeling.”79 Army leadership doctrine recognizes empathy as a character attribute and defines it as a “realization that leads to a deeper understanding” of “what others are experiencing and feeling,” while also “genuinely relat[ing] to another person’s situation, motives, or feelings.”80

Lack of empathy implies that a person does not have the genuine will or desire to step into the shoes of another and experience something from another’s point of view. This becomes a significant obstacle to learning EI because EI is all about the capacity to understand others’ emotional states, as well as one’s own.81 Lack of empathy also correlates to lack of self-awareness because people lacking self-awareness do not realize how their indifference or lack of empathy is affecting another person: “Self-awareness allows [people] to understand not only their own motivations and tendencies, but also how that behavior affects and influences others.”82

Emotional intelligence training can explain the essence of empathy and help individuals be more self-aware of their level of empathy. By taking the time and effort to learn about oneself through thoughtful and deliberate questioning, contemplation, and discussion, individuals can conceptualize—distill into words—their ability (or lack of ability) to empathize.83 Although it is possible to go through this EI training alone, it is particularly helpful and eye-opening when people who frequently interact with an individual offer “honest and productive” feedback.84

Obstacle 3: Inaccurate, Vague, and Disingenuous Feedback

Feedback is important to self-development, which is “continuous and begins with the motivated individual, supplemented by a concerted team effort.”85 This “team effort” includes “quality feedback from . . . peers, subordinates, and superiors . . . .”86 Providing feedback is a three-way street: leaders, subordinates,87 and peers can all provide valuable feedback to each other.88 Inaccurate, vague, and disingenuous feedback occurs when people fear repercussions for saying something wrong or being wrong.89 People may also be inclined to give this type of feedback when they want to “take the easy way out” or perpetuate a “cultural norm of nice and polite.”90 Feedback like this becomes an obstacle to learning EI because EI training and development requires an honest and critical assessment of an individual’s performance and behavior, based on thoughtful, focused, and genuine observations over time. Translating these assessments into feedback requires “tough conversations” and integrity, “choosing courage over [one’s own] comfort.”91

Inaccurate, vague, and disingenuous feedback can be overcome when leaders create a “climate of psychological safety”92 that fosters honest and constructive feedback, “without threat of repercussion or blame.”93 Psychological safety is the “belief that the work environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking,”94 such as feeling free to speak up, offer new or different ideas, and discuss concerns and mistakes, without fear of reprisal or judgment. Leaders are in a position to create the conditions for a psychologically safe workplace by acknowledging and limiting the role of fear in the process of learning and developing.95 Leaders should also recognize that the lower-ranking Service members are more likely to feel less “psychologically safe” than higher-ranking Service members.96 Lower-ranking Service members may “constantly [be] assessing [their] relative status, monitoring how [they] stack up against others . . . [even] subconsciously.”97 When conditions are set to allow members of an organization to outwardly be honest, bold, and challenge the status quo, the quality of feedback will be more accurate, clear, and genuine.

When the three obstacles discussed can be overcome, EI training can be effective at every stage of a JA’s career. As JAs rise in rank and positions of responsibility, their circle of involvement becomes broader. Judge advocates in all stages of their careers need EI to navigate their way through lawyering, leadership, and relationship management in a rapidly changing and complex environment.

EI Within a Judge Advocate’s Legal and Leadership Practice

Is there another profession that needs to grasp the complex human domain more than the military, where trust is our currency and lives hang on our decisions? How can we expect to influence and motivate [our clients and fellow Soldiers] to accomplish inherently emotional missions without first seeking to learn what makes them tick?98

EI Within a Judge Advocate’s Legal Practice

Judge advocates are officers who have gone through recognized and widely-accepted legal training.99 Many JAs have been trained under the traditional legal view that the law is “above emotions.”100 This may be why legal practice is often “aggressively rational, linear, and goal oriented,”101 masking the important emotional components that are also involved.102 Emotions provide valuable information and insight into any given situation and can enhance a JA’s ability to navigate the complex realm of legal practice.103 And when legal analysis is coupled with thoughtful consideration of one’s “emotion and intuition” (and the emotions and intuitions of all parties involved), it can result in a “more fully informed, and therefore better reasoned and more appropriate decision.”104

For JAs, EI comes into play in all aspects of legal practice, including representing clients, managing and understanding victims, advising commanders, and in relationships with other JAs and leaders. The ability to communicate, build and manage relationships with different people in various settings—practicing EI—is as important as mastery in a particular area of law.105 When JAs manage relationships with emotional competence, JAs can navigate their way through complex situations and make better decisions—decisions based on thorough analysis and critical thinking, coupled with thoughtful consideration of underlying emotional factors. Awareness of one’s and others’ emotional states in a decision-making process can “reduce[] results tainted by extraneous or damaging emotions . . . like fear or pride.”106

More importantly, EI can help JAs reduce the overwhelming amount of stress and anxiety they face on the job.107 For example, consider trial and defense counsel negotiating the outcome of a case. Both counsel may come to the table with specific, rational objectives, such as certain pleas and sentences. Anxiety exists on both sides, whether they recognize it or not, because both trial and defense counsel are “anxious about whether any agreement . . . can be reached, whether the other side is trustworthy or intentionally cutthroat, and whether their own abilities are sufficient to produce the best deal.”108 If anxiety is not “properly recognized and . . . managed . . . it can make [both parties] defensive and . . . less effective.”109 Trial and defense counsel, instead of focusing on the negative emotions surrounding the process, can work on 1) understanding their own and opposing counsel’s limitations or constraints;110 and 2) analyzing the legal issues involved from both perspectives, with a focus on values,111 such as cooperative relationship-building, trust, and appreciation for each other’s roles in the military justice process.

Anxiety during negotiations is just one specific example of how job-related pressure and stress can manifest itself in practice. Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted, showing that lawyers have above-average cases of substance abuse, depression, and other psychological problems.112 Exhaustion and burnout,113 coupled with high expectations, and a “psychologically unsafe” work environment has a direct effect on physical health as well.114 Possessing EI is pivotal because JAs with higher EI can better regulate their emotions and overcome negative ones with “value[s]-based”115 and “accurate” thinking.116 By utilizing EI, JAs will have sound mental and physical health,117 and be better and more effective lawyers and leaders.

EI Within a Judge Advocate’s Leadership Practice118

Leaders must either invest a reasonable amount of time attending to fears and feelings, or squander an unreasonable amount of time trying to manage ineffective and unproductive behavior.119

Judge advocate leaders must have emotional antennas that point both inward and outward. As mentioned above, even leaders with high EI may lack self-awareness when overwhelmed by professional or personal stressors.120 Self-awareness can help leaders understand and accept the reality of aggregated stressors that might hinder them from making values-based, cognizant decisions—decisions they would usually make easily and correctly without the burden of these stressors clouding their judgment.121 When leaders are able to “take a sober, down-to-earth view”122 of their stressors, it will prepare them “to act in ways that allow [them] to endure and survive extraordinary hardship”; it will allow leaders to build and sustain resilience.123 The ability to understand and accept reality can also help leaders point their emotional antennas outward and allow them to recognize and tune into subordinates’ struggles and emotional states in any given situation. This recognition will enable leaders to tailor their counseling, coaching, and mentoring to focus on how subordinates can accurately assess their struggles and emotional states (as well as those of other parties involved) to influence follow-on decisions and actions.

Counseling, coaching, and mentoring can be most effective—and, quite frankly, easiest—when subordinates are motivated. Judge advocate leaders should understand that a subordinate’s motivation is strongly influenced by the climate of the office;124 “leadership sets the tone.”125 No amount of proven EI development or training will be effective if the office environment does not support and encourage learning.126 Leaders should also be aware even in a psychologically-safe environment,127 learning does not end with mere training. The process of learning EI to acquire emotional competence and agility requires a continuous cycle of reflection and receptiveness to feedback on the learner’s part. It also requires meaningful and thoughtful observance and providing of honest feedback on the leader’s part. When it comes to meaningful and thoughtful observance and honest feedback, subordinates can also play a part and take on a leadership role.128

Subordinates’ role in the feedback process129 will also encourage engagement in the workplace. “Engaged workers . . . have bought into what the organization is about and are trying to make a difference.”130 Engaged JAs will better foster relationships with leaders, peers, clients, and subordinates, creating a sense of purpose and belonging in their work.131 Engagement is also strengthened as JAs learn—throughout their careers—how to be leaders by being good followers first.

“Being a good [follower] is part of being an effective leader.”132 From initial entry, JAs are taught to switch between leading and following, reinforcing the “servant follower-leader mindset.”133 One of the strengths of the JAG Corps is that its people know “how to step in and step out of their follower and leaders roles.”134 This means that when it comes to EI training, all JAs would benefit from learning EI from a follower and leader perspective. This perspective-based EI concept alone can introduce JAs to view the world from another JA’s perspective, thereby increasing social competence, to include empathy. When JA leaders can learn to shift perspectives and approach each relationship in a mindful, values-driven, and productive way, servant-leadership can be put into practice—and also enhanced.135

Conclusion

Army leadership doctrine,136 while acknowledging the role of human nature and emotions in leadership practice, does not address the practical aspects of leadership principles. Emotional intelligence is the mechanism through which Army leadership doctrine can be put into practice. Emotional intelligence can be learned and developed further, even when obstacles—such as too much ego; lack of empathy; and inaccurate, vague, and disingenuous feedback—stand in the way. These obstacles can be overcome with deliberate and thoughtful training.137 When JAs use emotional intelligence to navigate their way through lawyering, following, leadership, and relationship management, the JAG Corps can be more engaged, productive, and effective.

The uncharted territory of emotions should be explored with enthusiastic and analytical curiosity, as well as a dose of humility, so that it becomes an additional competence in a JA’s toolkit. Ignoring the domains of emotional intelligence in a JA’s legal and leadership practice can lead to the danger of counter-productive leadership.138 When JAs use steady emotional intelligence in each act of leadership or legal practice (through self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills), those collective actions can become stories of the emotionally intelligent leader, and those collective stories will blossom into a system that produces and inspires more emotionally intelligent JA leaders.139 Through our collective actions and stories, JAs can continue to elevate the quality of leadership in the JAG Corps. TAL

MAJ Sandys is the chief of administrative law at the 8th Theater Sustainment Command at Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

Notes

1. Daniel Goleman, What Makes a Leader, in Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence 39, 39 (Robert L. Taylor et al. eds., 2009).

2. How Emotional Intelligence Makes You a Better Lawyer, ABA (Oct. 2017), https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/october-2017/how-successful-lawyers-use-emotional-intelligence-to-their-advan/ (providing YourABA’s interview with Ronda Muir, founder and principal of Law People Management, LLC).

3. Army Career Match, U.S. Army, https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/career-match.html (July 1, 2020). On this website, a list of all military occupational specialties can be generated by conducting an advanced search for all active duty jobs.

4. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-1, Judge Advocate Legal Services para. 9-2 (24 Jan. 2017) [hereinafter AR 27-1] (outlining eligibility for appointment as judge advocates (JAs)).

5. See generally id.

6. See generally U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-3, The Army Legal Assistance Program (26 Mar. 2020) [hereinafter AR 27-3]; U.S. Dep’t Army, Reg. 27-10, Military Justice (20 Nov. 2020) [hereinafter AR 27-10].

7. See Lieutenant General Charles N. Pede, Putting Principled Counsel into Action, Army Law., no. 4, 2020, at 2.

8. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22 defines leadership as:

[T]he activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization. . . . An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.

U.S. Dep’t of Army, Doctrine Pub. 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession para.1-74 (31 July 2019) (C1, 25 Nov. 2019) [hereinafter ADP 6-22]. Compare this definition to General Stanley McChrystal’s definition of leadership: “[L]eadership is a complex system of relationships between leaders and followers, in a particular context, that provides meaning to its members.” Stanley McChrystal et al., Leaders: Myth and Reality 397 (2018). See alsoMichael Maccoby, The Leaders We Need: And What Makes Us Follow, at xvi–xvii (2007) (explaining that leadership “always implies a relationship between leader and led, and the relationship exists within a context”).

9. ADP 6-22, supra note 8.

10. Id. at v.

11. Id. at vii. See also Military Leadership in Pursuit of Excellence, supra note 1, 1–140 (where parts I and II provide various perspectives on leadership and successful leadership traits).

12. Id. ch. 8.

13. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Doctrine Pub. 1-01, Doctrine Primer para. 3-4 (31 July 2019) [hereinafter ADP 1-01].

14. Jim Mattis & Bing West, Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead 54 (2019) (discussing effective joint operations at a strategic operational level and how each service’s doctrine and culture is a starting point toward working together).

15. ADP 1-01, supra note 13, para. 3-4.

16. The goal of this article is not to teach the nuances of emotional intelligence (EI). The article, however, seeks to introduce the concept and its applicability for leadership development and training within the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps. For an example of an EI training vignette for field-grade JAs, see appendices A and B. Appendix B was modified from the content in Susan David & Christina Congleton, Emotional Agility: How Effective Leaders Manage Their Thoughts and Feelings, reprinted in On Emotional Intelligence 119, 119–126 (2015).

17. Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence 24–29 (3d ed. 2006).

18. The Judge Advocate General is responsible for integrating Army profession and leadership training in courses of instruction at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 600-100, Army Profession and Leadership Policy para. 2-10 (5 Apr. 2017) [hereinafter AR 600-100].

19. Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ 317 (4th ed. 2006). See also Goleman, supra note 17, at 4 (explaining that EI has been “[t]alked about loosely for decades under a variety of names, from ‘character’ and ‘personality’ to ‘soft skills’ and ‘competence.’”). Howard Gardner was one of the first psychologists to point out the difference between intellectual and emotional capacities in 1983. Goleman, supra note 19, at 317. Several years later, in 1990, the concept of EI theory was developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer. See Peter Salovey & John D. Mayer, Emotional Intelligence, 9 Imagination, Cognition, & Personality 185, 185–211 (1990). Daniel Goleman also acknowledges that psychologist Reuven Bar-On developed another early model of EI in 1988. See Goleman, supra note 19, at 317.

20. John D. Mayer, What Emotional Intelligence Is and Is Not, Psych. Today (Sept. 21, 2009), http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-personality-analyst/200909/what-emotional-intelligence-is-and-is-not.

21. John D. Mayer et al., Emotional Intelligence: New Ability or Eclectic Traits?, 63 Am. Psych. 503, 503 (2008).

22. Salovey & Mayer, supra note 19, at 189.

23. Goleman, supra note 19, at 28 (explaining that humans have two different kinds of intelligence, both rational and emotional, and how we succeed in life is determined by both IQ and EI).

24. Steven J. Stein, The EQ Leader: Instilling Passion, Creating Shared Goals, and Building Meaningful Organizations Through Emotional Intelligence 28 (2017).

25. Id. at 26–28. Psychologist Alfred Binet and psychiatrist Theodore Simon developed the first intelligence test. Id. See also Edmund B. Huey, The Binet Scale for Measuring Intelligence and Retardation, 1 J. Educ. Psych. 435, 435–44 (1910).

26. Stein, supra note 24, at 28 (explaining one study estimates that IQ accounts for twenty-five percent of an individual’s job performance and a more thorough review indicates the number is closer to four to nine percent of the variance). See Richmard K. Wagner, Intelligence, Training, and Employment, 52 Am. Psych.1059, 1059–69 (1997). See also Robert J. Sternberg et al., Testing Common Sense, 50 Am. Psych. 912, 912–27 (1995).

27. Goleman, supra note 17, at 19 (quoting Lyle Spencer, co-founder of Competency International, a research consultancy for competency-based assessment and development).

28. See AR 27-1, supra note 4, para. 9-2.

29. Goleman, supra note 1, at 39. In assessing the U.S. Government and other executive and leadership positions in business, Goleman found that EI competence became increasingly more important than cognitive abilities, intellectual superiority, or technical skills in higher level positions—“emotional competence made the crucial difference between mediocre leaders and the best . . . . On average, close to 90 percent of their success in leadership was attributable to emotional intelligence.” Goleman, supra note 17, at 33–34.

30. Goleman, supra note 1, at 39. Research into 130 criminal and corporate practitioners’ and judges’ EI assessment found that “those few who scored above average in emotional intelligence were ‘the star performers’—stood out from the rest.” Ronda Muir, Beyond Smart: Lawyering with Emotional Intelligence 82 (2019). See also Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, Ignore Emotional Intelligence at Your Own Risk, Harv. Bus. Rev. (Oct. 22, 2014), https://hbr.org/2014/10/ignore-emotional-intelligence-at-you-own-risk (explaining that in analyzing the correlation of experience, IQ, and EI in job candidates, those with vast experience and high IQ, but had low EI, had a failure rate as high as 25 percent); Kelly A. Hudson, Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy in Military Leaders (Mar. 25, 2016) (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandman University) (on file with Brandman Digital Repository) (finding that there is a relationship between a leader’s EI and self-efficacy and the higher a leader’s EI, the higher the leader’s self-efficacy).

31. For a general overview of the evolution of EI, see Parvesh K. Chopra & Gopal K. Kanji, Emotional Intelligence: A Catalyst for Inspirational Leadership and Management Excellence, 21 Total Quality Mgmt. 971, 973–75 (2010). See also Goleman, supra note 19, at 9–29, app. C (providing a detailed explanation of the intricacies of human brain anatomy, neurology, and physiology that enable humans to think, feel, and react). It is important to understand the “circuitry” in the human brain (amygdala, related limbic structures, and the neocortex) because it scientifically explains why “emotion is so crucial to effective thought, both in making wise decisions and in simply allowing us to think clearly.” See id. at 27.

32. Psychologist Daniel Goleman developed this EI model in 1998. A couple of years later, Goleman developed a newer model, collapsing the twenty-five competencies into twenty and the five domains into four (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management). See Daniel Goleman, An Emotional Intelligence-Based Theory of Performance, in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace 27, 29–30 (The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations ed., 2001). See also Daniel Goleman & Richard E. Boyatzis, Emotional Intelligence Has 12 Elements: Which Do You Need to Work On?, Harv. Bus. Rev. (Feb. 6, 2017), https://hbr.org/2017/02/emotional-intelligence-has-12-elements-which-do-you-need-to-work-on (further reducing the competencies down to twelve). The author uses Goleman’s earlier model because it is more comprehensive and comparable to Army leadership competencies and attributes.

33. See Goleman, supra note 17, at 49–72. See also id. at 318 (describing self-awareness as “[k]nowing what we are feeling in the moment, and using those preferences to guide our decision making; having a realistic assessment of our own abilities and a well-grounded sense of self-confidence”).

34. Id. at 73–104. See also id. at 318 (describing self-regulation as “[h]andling our emotions so that they facilitate rather than interfere with the task at hand; being conscientious and delaying gratification to pursue goals; recovering well from emotional distress”).

35. Id. at 105–32. See also id. at 318 (motivation is “[u]sing our deepest preferences to move and guide us toward our goals, to help us take initiative and strive to improve, and to persevere in the face of setbacks and frustrations”).

36. Id. at 133–62. See also id. at 318 (describing empathy as “[s]ensing what people are feeling, being able to take their perspective, and cultivating rapport and attunement with a broad diversity of people”).

37. Id. at 26–27, 163–234. See also id. at 318 (describing social skills as “[h]andling emotions in relationships well and accurately reading social situations and networks; interacting smoothly; using these skills to persuade and lead, negotiate and settle disputes, for cooperation and teamwork”). Although there are various models of EI developed over the years, the author focuses on Daniel Goleman’s model. See generally Stein, supra note 24, at 28–40 (discussing other models of EI and how the concept of emotion has been studied and analyzed, even as early as the 1870s).

38. Goleman, supra note 17, at 26.

39. Id. at 27.

40. Id. at 26–27.

41. This is the minimum requirement, as long as a competency exists in each EI domain. Id. at 25.

42. Id. at 25, 28.

43. Id. at 24.

44. Id. at 25 (providing an example of a musically gifted person, who never has lessons, and thus, is never able to hone the skills necessary to have a successful musical career, “a Pavarotti who never had the chance to blossom.”). See infra text accompanying notes 62–97 (elaborating on how EI can be learned).

45. David & Congleton, supra note 16, at 120.

46. Fourteen attributes fall under categories of character, presence, and intellect in Army doctrine. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, tbls.2-1, 3-1, 4-1. Ten competencies fall under categories of leads, develops, and achieves. See id. tbls.5-1 to 5-5, tbls.6-1 to 6-5, tbl.7-1. Army doctrine’s attributes and competencies can be listed in more than one domain because as indicated earlier in this article, just like Goleman’s competencies are interdependent, so are Army leadership doctrine’s attributes and competencies. See supra note 42 and accompanying text.

47. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, introductory fig.1. See also id. fig.1-3, The Army Leadership Requirements Model.

48. Both the Army leadership requirements model and Goleman’s EI model use the word “competency.” For the purposes of this paper, it is important to distinguish under what context the word “competency” is being used. Army leadership doctrine’s explanation of “core leader competencies” is confusing, in that the term “competency” is described as a “component” having three categories, while also describing a core set of competencies that fall under one of the three categories. Compare ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 1-84 and fig.1-3, with id. para. 1-88 and fig.1-4.

49. Id. para. 1-84.

50. Id. para. 1-86. See also supra note 48.

51. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 1-87.

52. Id. See also supra note 49.

53. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 1-85.

54. See supra note 46.

55. See supra text accompanying notes 31–45 (comparing EI with intelligence quotient (IQ)). See also Goleman, supra note 17, at 18–21 (describing IQ as part of a set of “technical skills[s]” or “total body of specialized information and practical skills” that comes from “in-the-trenches learning”).

56. See ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-50 (“All leaders . . . must monitor their personal behavior.”).

57. Id. para. 1-92. See also id. paras. 6-14 to 6-19 (discussing developing self-awareness through self-critique and self-regulation).

58. Id. para. 10-26 (“[I]mproving self-awareness and self-mastery helps build and sustain resiliency.”). See id. paras. 2-31 to 2-32, 4-11, 5-65 (discussing self-awareness in the context of humility, interpersonal tact, leading with confidence, and leader preparation). See id. tbl.3-1 (defining resilience as the “tendency to recover quickly from setbacks, shock, injuries, adversity, and stress, while maintaining a mission and organizational focus”).

59. Id. para. 8-39.

60. See supra note 46.

61. Army leadership doctrine dedicates a chapter to “Leadership in Practice.” See ADP 6-22, supra note 8, paras. 8-1 to 8-7. This chapter, however, is more about examining factors that may arise when applying leadership. Id. The chapter delves into challenges of an operational environment, management, and stress, but does not address how to apply leadership doctrine on a daily basis. Chapter 8 also discusses counterproductive leadership, “demonstration of leader behaviors that violate one or more of the Army’s core leader competencies or Army Values, preventing a climate conducive to mission accomplishment.” Id. para. 8-46. This section on counterproductive leadership, however, only provides explanations of what a leader should not do, which are exhibiting behaviors that are antithetical to leadership attributes and competencies. See id. paras. 8-45 to 8-50.

62. See Cary Cherniss & Daniel Goleman, Training for Emotional Intelligence: A Model, in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, supra note 32, at 209–33. See also Goleman, supra note 17; Stein, supra note 24, at 306 (discussing the wide ranging studies and examples of programs designed to improve a leader’s EI); Jennifer Kahn, Can Emotional Intelligence Be Taught?, N.Y. Times (Sept. 11, 2013), https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/can-emotional-intelligence-be-taught.html; Harv. Bus. Rev., The EI Advantage: Driving Innovation and Business Success Through the Power of Emotional Intelligence (2019), https://hbr.org/sponsored/2019/08/the-ei-advantage-driving-innovation-and-business-success-through-the-power-of-emotional-intelligence (“Including [emotional intelligence] in leadership training is often the way many organizations start to develop [emotional intelligence] more broadly.”); Delphine Nelis et al., Increasing Emotional Intelligence: (How) Is It Possible?, 47 Personality & Individual Differences 36, 36–41 (2009) (discussing the improvement of EI in young adults after training, but that people will go back to their “baseline” EI level, if competences are not practiced).

63. Richard E. Boyatzis, How and Why Individuals Are Able to Develop Emotional Intelligence, in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, supra note 32, at 234–53; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Can You Really Improve Your Emotional Intelligence?, Harv. Bus. Rev. (May 29, 2013), https://hbr.org/2013/05/can-you-really-improve-your-em (discussing successful programs, yet admitting that “no program can get someone from 0 to 100%.”). See also Goleman, supra note 17, at 239–41; Kevin B. Oden et al., Embedding Emotional Intelligence into Military Training Contexts, 3 Procedia Manufacturing 4052, 4052–59 (2015) (explaining their research on how EI can be used to improve human performance in both kinetic and non-kinetic operations); Raquel Gilar-Corbi et al., Can Emotional Intelligence Be Improved? A Randomized Experimental Study of a Business-Oriented EI Training Program for Senior Managers, PLoS ONE (Oct. 23, 2019), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224254 (finding that a thirty-hour EI training course for senior managers resulted in EI improvement). See appendices A and B for an example of an EI training vignette for field-grade JAs.

64. Shelby Skrhak, 12 Motivational Quotes About Improving Yourself, Success (Apr. 13, 2017), https://www.success.com/12-motivational-quotes-about-improving-yourself/ (quoting T.D. Jakes).

65. Too much ego encompasses resistance to criticism, fear of vulnerability, inaccurate self-perception, overestimation of one’s EI, and lack of self-awareness.

66. See generally Chamorro-Premuzic, supra note 63; Stein, supra note 24, at 177–78 (discussing “leadership derailers”); Goleman, supra note 19, at 297–300 (discussing neural circuitry of fear); Goleman, supra note 17, at 235–36 (discussing the “yuck factors” in business, “emotional battles people faced daily that were distasteful and painful,” such as rejections, overwhelming workload, fear of not being able to support themselves, confusion, and imbalance).

67. Ego, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego (last visited Jan. 25, 2022); Jen Shirkani, Ego v. EQ: How Top Leaders Beat 8 Ego Traps With Emotional Intelligence, at xvi (2014).

68. Egotism, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egotism (last visited Jan. 25, 2022). “[T]oxic leadership . . . is defined as a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors.” AR 600-100, supra note 18, para. 1-11(d). Army regulation 600-100 also defines the “toxic self-centered abuser” as those leaders who are “[c]apable of producing spectacular short term results, but are arrogant, abusive, intemperate, distrusting, and irascible.” Id. para. 1-11(e)(4).

69. Some leaders who lack competence are aware of their weaknesses and instead of overcoming their weaknesses, instead behave in “counterproductive or negative ways to cover up their shortcomings . . . refusing to listen to subordinates.” ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-49. On the contrary, “[s]elf-aware leaders are open to feedback from others and actively seek it.” Id. para. 6-15.

70. “Vulnerability is not weakness . . . . Vulnerability is our most accurate measure of courage.” Doug Crandall & Matt Kincaid, Permission to Speak Freely: How the Best Leaders Cultivate a Culture of Candor 93 (2017) (quoting Brené Brown).

71. “Counterproductive behaviors can span a range of behaviors to include . . . abusing authority.” AR 600-100, supra note 18, para. 1-11(d). Self-serving behaviors in counterproductive leaders include behaviors that “result from self-centered motivations, where they act in ways that seek primarily to accomplish their own goals and needs before those of others.” ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-49. Examples include “distorting information to favor own ideas, exaggerating accomplishments or abilities, putting own work and accomplishments ahead of others and the mission, displaying narcissistic tendencies, or exhibiting a sense of entitlement.” Id.

72. Counterproductive leaders are “often associated with arrogant or abusive leaders who are not aware of their shortcomings and do not seek to correct their shortcomings.” ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-49.

73. See id. paras. 6-14 to 6-19 (discussing adaptability and humility in the context of developing self-awareness).

74. See generally Major Patrick Sandys, Assessing Leaders from the Bottom Up, Army Law., no. 4, 2020, at 60 (discussing the need for subordinates to provide input on their leaders’ leadership quality to develop leaders in the JAG Corps).

75. See supra text accompanying notes 85–97.

76. Army Leadership doctrine directly addresses lack of empathy under self-serving behaviors of counterproductive leaders. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-49. Self-serving behavior examples of counterproductive leaders include “lacking concern or empathy for others . . . distorting information to favor own ideas.” Id. See generally Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger & Major Courtney M. Cohen, The Critical Character Attribute of Empathy, Army Law., no. 6, 2019, at 30, 31–33.

77. Brené Brown, Dare to Lead 140 (2018). “Empathy is not connecting to an experience; it’s connecting to the emotions that underpin an experience.” Id. See also Berger & Cohen, supra note 76, at 31.

78. Brown, supra note 77, at140. Empathy is also “infinite and renewable.” Id. “Empathy is feeling with people. Sympathy is feeling for them.” Id. at 152. See also ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 2-23.

79. Brown, supra note 77, at 142. Army regulation recognizes destructive leadership styles to include those who are “inattentive to the morale of their organization.” AR 600-100, supra note 18, para. 1-11e(3). Leaders who are “inattentive” may lack empathy because they are not aware.

80. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 2-23. See also Brown, supra note 77, at 143–48, 152–56 (discussing five empathy skills and six empathic failures).

81. See supra text accompanying notes 19–61 (discussing EI and Army leadership doctrine).

82. Berger & Cohen, supra note 76, at 32.

83. This could be fear of vulnerability, shame, and “emotional exposure.” See Brown, supra note 77, at 19–43.

84. Id. at 7–9. For example, in an Army setting, feedback from subordinates, peers, and leaders may reveal things about a JA that the JA has not realized before.

85. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 6-8.

86. Id.

87. “Hearing the unfiltered, authentic thoughts of those you lead is more valuable than their presentation skills.” Crandall & Kinkaid, supra note 70, at 62.

88. “Providing feedback is a common element of interacting with others, regardless of developmental role or process.” ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 6-52. “We can get better at recognizing and mitigating both our biases and the contextual factors that are influencing our judgment, especially by enabling others to speak up and call us out.” Crandall & Kinkaid, supra note 70, at 62–63.

89. Brown, supra note 77, at 9.

90. Id. at 7–8. Brown explains that avoiding “honest and productive” feedback or “tough conversations” results in “lack of clarity, diminishing trust and engagement . . . an increase in problematic behavior, including passive-aggressive behavior, talking behind people’s backs, pervasive back channel communication, [and] gossip.” Id.

91. Id. at 227. “Integrity is . . . choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast, or easy . . . practicing your values, not just professing them.” Id.

92. See generally Amy C. Edmonson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (2019) (explaining how psychological safety, as opposed to a culture of fear, in the workplace leads to thriving employees, effective teamwork, and organizational success).

93. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-13. See also Crandall & Kinkaid, supra note 70, at 100 (“Leaders must facilitate vital interpersonal exchanges by creating a climate of psychological safety in which it’s expected people will speak up and disagree.”).

94. Edmonson, supra note 92, at 8.

95. Id. at 14 (discussing how fear is not an effective motivator and “inhibits learning”). “[H]ow psychologically safe a person feels strongly shapes the propensity to engage in learning behaviors, such as information sharing, asking for help, or experimenting.” Id. Psychological safety is not about a set of personality traits, being nice and trustworthy, or lowering performance standards. Psychological safety, instead, pushes boundaries through “candor and willingness to engage in productive conflict so as to learn from different points of view.” Id. at 15.

96. Id.

97. Id.

98. Chaplain (Major) John McDougall, Empathetic Leadership: Understanding the Human Domain, Mil. Rev., Nov.–Dec. 2019, at 28, 29.

99. Muir, supra note 30, at 45.

100. See generally Elizabeth Mertz, The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer” (2007). See also Susan A. Bandes, Introduction to The Passions of Law 1, 6 (Susan A. Bandes ed., 1999) (underlying “the law’s insistence on neutral emotionless judging” and “law’s devotion to the myth of an emotionless, cognition-driven legal system”).

101. Muir, supra note 30, at 45 (quoting Melissa Nelken, faculty chair of the Hastings Center for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution). See also Melissa Nelken, Negotiation and Psychoanalysis: If I’d Wanted to Learn About Feelings, I Wouldn’t Have Gone to Law School, 46 J. Leg. Educ. 420, 421 (1996). Most lawyers are taught that “how they feel about the cases they read is irrelevant; what matters is the soundness of their logic . . . . Resistance to the human dimension of the lawyer’s work is built into most law training.” Muir, supra note 30, at 48 (quoting Melissa Nelken).

102. In the context of “pain and suffering” damages in civil lawsuits, lawyers resort to “complex analysis” or “a simple formula” to “avoid[] assessments or calculations of actual emotional damage.” Muir, supra note 30, at 46. Muir explains how the legal community is challenged by the “inability of [the] conventional justice system to adequately assess the complex interplay between brain function, emotion management, and criminality . . . .” Id. at 47.

103. Christine C. Kelton, Clients Want Results, Lawyers Need Emotional Intelligence, 63 Clev. State L. Rev. 459, 493 (2015). See also Muir, supra note 30, at 44 (explaining how a study on lawyers’ EI scores was “significantly below the national average”).

104. Alan M. Lerner, From Socrates to Damascio, from Langdell to Kandel: The Role of Emotion in Modern Legal Education, in Affect and Legal Education; Emotion in Learning and Teaching the Law 151, 161 (Paul Maharg & Caroline Maughan eds., 2011); Ronda Muir, The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Law Firm Partners, Legal Prac. Mag., July/Aug. 2007, at 60 (quoting Peter Salovey) (“Law is human interaction in emotionally evocative climates. Any lawyer who can understand what emotions are present and why is at tremendous advantage.”).

105. See generally Muir, supra note 30, at 82–85. “[O]nce you’re in a high-IQ position, intellect loses its power to determine who will emerge as a productive employee or an effective leader. [To be a productive employee or an effective leader], how you handle yourself and your relationships”—emotional intelligence—“matters more than IQ.” Id. at 88 (quoting Daniel Goleman).

106. Id. at 90.

107. “[B]iological pathways that make the mind, the emotions, and the body [are] not separate, but intimately entwined.” Goleman, supra note 19, at 166. See also id. at 166–85 (discussing the relationship between emotions and health and how people who experience “chronic anxiety, long periods of sadness and pessimism, unremitting tension or incessant hostility, relentless cynicism or suspiciousness . . . [are] found to have double the risk of disease”).

108. Muir, supra note 30, at 94.

109. Id.

110. Trial counsel may have specific directions from the chain of command not to negotiate beyond a specific sentence. Defense counsel, on the other hand, may be considering specific wishes from the client.

111. See generally What Are Your Values: Deciding What’s Most Important in Your Life, MindTools, https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_85.htm (last visited Nov. 21, 2020); Values Exercise, think2perform, https://www.think2perform.com/our-approach/values (last visited Nov. 21, 2020) (walking through the user’s behaviors with “ideal values” to define what the user values most and “set the stage for behaviors and performance more closely aligned with your ideal self”); David & Congleton, supra note 16, at 126 (discussing acting aligned with values, not negative emotions).

112. Muir, supra note 30, at 131–47 (citing several studies and reports on law students and lawyers mental health and substance abuse issues). See generally Patrick R. Krill et al., The Prevalence of Substance Use and Other Mental Health Concerns Among American Attorneys, 10 J. Addiction Med. 46 (2016).

113. See generally Major Rebecca A. Blood, Preventing Burnout in the JAG Corps, Army Law., no. 6, 2019, at 39–41.

114. See Muir, supra note 30, at 133.

115. David & Congleton, supra note 16, at 126 (discussing acting or responding in a way that “aligns with your values,” not immediate negative emotions).

116. Compare accurate thinking with positive thinking. Joel Minden, The Problem with Positive Thinking: Aim for “Accurate” and “Useful” Instead, Psych. Today (Aug. 25, 2016), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cbt-and-me/201608/the-problem-positive-thinking. See Karen Reivich & Andrew Shatté, The Resilience Factor: 7 Essential Skills for Overcoming Life’s Inevitable Obstacles (2002); Muir, supra note 30, at 134.

117. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 350-53, Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (19 June 2014) (discussing the five dimensions of strength and resilience skills).

118. Army Regulation 600-100 recognizes destructive leaders who are “incompetent managers.” Incompetent managers are those who “possess inadequate cognitive or emotional fitness . . . .” AR 600-100, supra note 18, para. 1-11e(1).

119. Brown, supra note 77, at 67.

120. See supra text accompanying notes 47–64 (discussing how resilience falls within Goleman’s personal competence domains).

121. “Facing reality . . . is grueling work,” but “when we truly stare down reality, we prepare ourselves to act in ways to allow us to endure and survive extraordinary hardship.” Diane L. Coutu, How Resilience Works, reprinted in On Emotional Intelligence, supra note 45, at 111–12.

122. Id. at 108.

123. Id. at 112. See id. at 108–09 (explaining how resilience can be cultivated by facing down reality, searching for meaning, and continually improvising).

124. See supra notes 92–97 and accompanying text (discussing psychological safety in the workplace).

125. Cherniss & Goleman, supra note 62, at 221. See Muir, supra note 30, at 254 (noting that while emotionally intelligent workers are the best performers, people in leadership positions are more likely to have the lowest EI level).

126. Cherniss & Goleman, supra note 62, at 220–33.

127. See supra notes 92–97 and accompanying text.

128. “All Army members who witness [counterproductive leadership behaviors] have a responsibility to prevent, intervene, counter, or mitigate them.” ADP 6-22, supra note 8, para. 8-50.

129. See generally Sandys, supra note 74.

130. Muir, supra note 30, at 290 (quoting Susan Sorenson and discussing how “engaged” workplaces have lower turnover and higher productivity).

131. Id. at 291 (explaining how “affective” or “emotional attachment” type engagement “produces strongest commitment . . . rais[ing] job satisfaction and mental and physical well-being”).

132. ADP 6-22, supra note 8, at vii.

133. Stein, supra note 24, at 294.

134. Id. at 296.

135. Servant leaders “accurately assess [their] follower’s highest priority needs.” Stein, supra note 24, at 296. Servant leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve . . . first . . . . Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.” Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness 27 (25th anniversary ed. 2002). See also Hermann Hesse, The Journey to the East (1932).

136. ADP 6-22, supra note 8.

137. See supra text accompanying notes 62–97 (discussing emotional intelligence learning and obstacles).

138. See ADP 6-22, supra note 8, paras. 8-45 to 8-50; AR 600-100, supra note 18, para. 1-11.

139. Inspired by Baratunde Thurston, a futurist comedian, writer, and cultural critic. See Baratunde, https://www.baratunde.com/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2020).