top of page
Search

Emotional intelligence at work: what separates a boss from a leader

2 hours ago
6 min read

It's more common than it seems that, in a work meeting, nobody says they disagree with something, and then that it's discussed in the hallway with other people outside the meeting.

Or a technically flawless manager, who meets their targets and delivers results on time, but people leave time and time again. Every six or eight months someone quits without knowing why.

In both cases, the problem is usually not technical. There comes a point when knowledge is no longer enough, and what truly makes the difference is how we relate to other people. That's where emotional intelligence comes into play.


Why the best coach isn't always the best leader

Emotional intelligence is one of the key differentiators between a boss and a leader. It doesn't replace technical knowledge or strategic vision, but it's what allows you to manage pressure, genuinely connect with people, and build relationships based on real trust, not on the authority that comes with a position.

The European School of Excellence (2024) points out that "productive leaders who lead outstanding teams have something in common: emotional intelligence," and presents it as a determining factor in differentiating an effective leader from someone who simply holds the position.

And that's where a fairly common problem arises. Many people reach leadership positions because they were excellent at their jobs. The best analyst ends up as head of analysts, the best salesperson as sales manager. But being very good at your job doesn't necessarily mean you're prepared to lead those who do it.

The change of role requires something different: to stop measuring success only by what one is capable of doing and to start also being accountable for how the team works and develops.


The four competencies that underpin emotional leadership

To understand what a leader needs to better manage their team, we can start with Daniel Goleman's model of emotional intelligence and apply it to specific work situations. At Endobrand, we adapt it to the language we use every day with the teams we support.


Self-awareness. Knowing what I'm feeling while I'm feeling it, not analyzing it alone an hour later. It's noticeable when a leader recognizes they're avoiding a conversation because it makes them uncomfortable, rather than justifying that decision with some other reason.


Self-regulation. The ability to choose your response, instead of letting the response choose you. This is seen when a leader receives unexpected criticism in a meeting and, instead of cutting it off or responding immediately, decides to listen before replying.

Empathy. Understanding what the other person is going through, even if you don't share their point of view. A decision may be correct on paper and still feel arbitrary to the team.

Interpersonal skills. Holding a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship. That's where uncomfortable topics come up, topics that are postponed time and time again, until they explode on their own.


Because leadership isn't just about having difficult conversations. It also involves creating the conditions for people to speak up, make mistakes, and admit what they don't know without fear of the consequences. And some leaders have taken that idea much further than we could imagine.



What a Swedish football team understood before many companies

Graham Potter is an English football manager and former player with training in emotional intelligence and leadership. Before managing national teams, he led Östersunds FK, a Swedish club, from the fourth division to the first, using a method that had nothing to do with traditional football tactics.

With the backing of the club's board, he created a cultural academy and got his players and coaching staff involved in activities completely outside their usual routine. They staged a ballet of Swan Lake, co-wrote a book, organized an art exhibition, and even put on a rock concert where Potter himself sang in front of thousands of people.


Behind it all was a simple logic. A group that has already shown itself to be vulnerable loses the fear of saying "I didn't understand" or "I was wrong" in any meeting.

Of course, no one's going to have their board of directors stage a ballet or sing in a concert, and there's no need to take the analogy that far. The question worth asking is simpler: how safe is it to make a mistake on your team? And who was the last person to admit a mistake out loud, without having to be dragged out of it?



It's so obvious when a team is working with an emotionally absent leader.

It's not always noticeable in an open conflict. Often it appears in details that end up becoming part of the routine:

  • The meetings end without objections, but the real objections surface afterward, in the hallway. Often because the last time someone raised a disagreement, the leader took it personally.

  • People ask for permission for decisions they could make on their own. It's not always a lack of judgment; often it's a way to reduce the risk of making a mistake.

  • When things go well, there's almost no recognition for the team. When they go wrong, the question of who was responsible quickly arises.

  • Performance feedback often feels more like being criticized. Areas for improvement are presented as mistakes, and the meeting ends up assigning blame instead of building solutions.

  • Difficult topics are postponed until there's no room left. When they're finally addressed, team communication is already broken , and the conversation ends up being much more difficult than it would have been to begin with.


A real-life case, though unnamed, clearly illustrates how this pattern can emerge. Roberto is a young professional with a solid technical background in investments. In just a few years, he achieved significant milestones in portfolio management and even presented success stories to a bank's Board of Directors. This performance quickly propelled him from an operational role to supervisory and then to management, eventually making him a finalist for a vice presidency.

The change came when he took on the leadership role of a twelve-person team, four of whom were located in another country and spoke another language. His strengths—energetic, quick-acting, and risk-taking—no longer worked as effectively with a larger, more diverse team. Frustration grew within him, as did discontent among colleagues and clients.

When he began to develop his emotional skills, something changed. He learned to think before he acted and to redirect that energy instead of letting it control him.


From emotional intelligence to relational intelligence

Emotional intelligence is often thought of as something that happens behind closed doors: recognizing one's own emotions and learning to manage them. But of the four competencies we looked at, two already focus on the external world. Empathy and interpersonal skills aren't just about oneself, but about how we relate to others.

Once a leader knows how to recognize and manage their own emotions, and also understand and support those of others, the next level is to integrate this into relationships. Not as a skill that is only activated in difficult times, but as a consistent way of relating to people over time. That's where relational intelligence comes in.


Relational intelligence is the ability to build and maintain relationships that allow people to work better together, even under pressure, in disagreements, or during difficult conversations. It manifests in everyday life: how you ask for something, how you respond to a request, how you give feedback, and how you handle a difficult conversation without the relationship breaking down. This is the realm of relational intelligence, the term we use at Endobrand.


This cannot be solved with a workshop

You can perfectly understand what emotional intelligence is and still react poorly when a meeting gets tense. That's why emotional competence isn't acquired in an eight-hour workday. It develops in real-world work situations, when you have to make decisions, receive criticism, give feedback, or have a difficult conversation.

That doesn't mean a workshop is useless, but the real work begins afterwards, when the training is over and it's time to apply it to everyday situations.

Because the important question is not what the team learned that day, but what will happen the following Monday so that all of that doesn't stay in the room where it was taught.


The next step

If you recognized yourself in any of these signs, it's probably not just one person's problem. These are dynamics that can take hold in a team even when the technical results are good. And you don't have to resolve them all at once.

At Endobrand, we work with leaders and teams to develop these skills on a daily basis, supporting the changes that truly need to be sustainable. If you'd like to discuss how this process could work for your team, contact us via WhatsApp.


Literature


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page