Shared governance wasn’t built to be quick; it was built to be legitimate. Administrative teams, faculty senates, curriculum councils, budget committees—these are the places where identity, mission, and academic standards are argued into shape. But speed matters, too. When enrollment headwinds intensify or program portfolios need to evolve, “we’ll take it to committee” can sound like a stall. The answer isn’t to sidestep governance. It’s to change how we work inside governance. Emotional intelligence (EQ), specifically as measured by the EQ-i 2.0, provides committees and teams with the operating habits that preserve their voice while accelerating decision-making. Not “soft skills”—decision skills.
Why committees really slow down (and why bylaws or norms aren’t the culprit)
If you’ve watched a two-hour agenda become a three-hour debate with no outcome, you’ve seen it: the drag is rarely procedural.
- Status and identity are in the room. Reputation, tenure, disciplinary pride—none of it is trivial. When it goes unnamed, people hedge or grandstand. EQ-i levers: Emotional Self-Awareness, Self-Regard, Assertiveness.
- Facts and values get blurred. We argue over “insufficient evidence” when the real conflict is identity (“Is this who we are?”), Or we cling to a value while ignoring counter-evidence—EQ-i levers: Reality Testing, Problem Solving, Social Responsibility.
- Performative talk crowds out decision talk. Eloquence substitutes for clarity; quieter dissent (often the valuable kind) never surfaces—EQ-i levers: Emotional Expression, Empathy, Interpersonal Relationships, Impulse Control.
Shared governance and collaborative work don’t break decisions; unworked emotions do. EQ provides you with the language and sequence to metabolize tension and move.
The EQ-i 2.0 habits that make governance faster and fairer
- Reality Testing + Problem Solving (Decision Making): Start with the fewest, strongest facts and the “known unknowns.” Condense the 22-page memo into a single page that everyone can easily hold.
- Emotional Self-Awareness and Self-Regard (Self-Perception): Invite members to separate their preferences from their principles. Owning one’s stake lowers defensiveness and speeds trade-offs.
- Emotional Expression + Assertiveness (Self-Expression): Say the hard thing succinctly; ask for the decision explicitly. Hedging burns time; candor saves it.
- Empathy + Interpersonal Relationships + Social Responsibility (Interpersonal): Name the value being pressured, not just the one being advanced. People will accept outcomes they don’t prefer if the process honors what matters to them and to the mission.
- Impulse Control + Flexibility + Stress Tolerance (Stress Management): Time-box debate, prevent scope creep at the finish line, and adapt when new evidence truly changes the calculus.
Common failure modes—and the EQ fix
- Analysis paralysis as virtue signaling. Fix: Name the “known unknowns,” assign owners, and time-box evidence gathering. (Reality Testing + Impulse Control.)
- Values smuggled in as facts. Fix: Run the advance/pressure exercise every time and record both in the brief. (Emotional Self-Awareness + Social Responsibility.)
- Scope creep at the finish line. Fix: Reaffirm the decision question; park adjacent issues with owners and dates. (Assertiveness + Stress Tolerance.)
Why EQ belongs at the center of shared governance
Meta-analyses consistently link emotional intelligence with higher job performance, better collaboration, and sounder judgment under stress—exactly what deliberative bodies require. Likewise, decades of research on procedural justice have shown that when people feel informed and respected—when process quality is high—they are more likely to accept outcomes they may not prefer and are less likely to relitigate. In other words, EQ doesn’t replace governance; it enhances governance.
Bottom line: When committees and teams are EQ-literate, disagreement becomes a source of information rather than a threat. Decisions get faster without getting thinner. People may not love every outcome, but they can see their fingerprints on the process—and that’s legitimacy at speed.
Research touchpoints
- O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, et al. (2011) — Journal of Organizational Behavior meta-analysis on EI and performance.
- Joseph & Newman (2010) — Journal of Applied Psychology, integrative EI model and decision outcomes.
- Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, et al. (2001) — Journal of Applied Psychology, procedural justice and acceptance of outcomes.
- Tyler (2006) — Why People Obey the Law, legitimacy via fair process.
- Bar-On (2006) — EQ-i theoretical foundation.
Explore how we support higher-ed leaders with coaching and EQ workshops: Leadership Development for Higher Education