I don’t know if anyone has heard of Daniel Goleman? If you haven’t, look him up. He is an American writer, psychologist and science journalist specialising in psychology and brain sciences. He is the author of over ten books and some deal with the subject of leadership.

In 1995 Goleman wrote a best seller called “emotional intelligence” and he found that this was the fundamental ingredient that every leader must possess to be a success of being a leader.

Goleman found that while the qualities traditionally associated with leadership—such as intelligence, toughness, determination, and vision—are required for success, they are insufficient. Truly effective leaders are also distinguished by a high degree of emotional intelligence, which includes self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill.

He wrote: “Every business person knows a story about a highly intelligent, highly skilled executive who was promoted into a leadership position only to fail at the job. And they also know a story about someone with solid—but not extraordinary—intellectual abilities and technical skills who was promoted into a similar position and then soared.

“Such anecdotes support the widespread belief that identifying individuals with the ‘right stuff’ to be leaders is more art than science. After all, the personal styles of superb leaders vary: Some leaders are subdued and analytical; others shout their manifestos from the mountaintops. And just as important, different situations call for different types of leadership. Most mergers need a sensitive negotiator at the helm, whereas many turnarounds require a more forceful authority.

“I have found, however, that the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. They do matter, but mainly as “threshold capabilities”; that is, they are the entry-level requirements for executive positions. But my research, along with other recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, 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.”

Discounting the Governor, we have two “leaders” who shape how we, in the Cayman Islands, are going to enjoy our life here. One, Hon. McKeeva Bush, holds all the power, whilst the other, Hon. Alden McLaughlin, is “in waiting”.

Which of the two leaders has shown “emotional intelligence”?

Both leaders have their mounting problems. Bush has been in the firing line of every media house, including iNews Cayman, for the way he has conducted himself with “forceful authority”. Some would call it “bullying”. He is under investigation for a number of “deals” that may have “crossed the line”. Whatever they are the RCIPS investigation into them is taking a very, very long time. I would hate to add up the sum of man hours these investigations are costing us, plus the damage being done to our image. Because the behaviour of the president, prime minister, premier, or anything else you want to call him or her, reflects on the country they represent.

There have been cries, seemingly everyday, screaming for Bush’s resignation, especially from the opposition and even more especially from the voice of MLA, Ezzard Miller, who was until last, Friday (10), the lone North Side Independent member of the Legislative Assembly. Now Arden Mclean, MLA for the neighbouring district of East End, who has left the People’s Progressive Movement (PPM) party he was a founding member of, joins him.

This is now a big worry for McLaughlin, the PPM leader. The only public statement he has made was that it came as no surprise. “This is something Arden has been wrestling with for some time,” McLaughlin said. “He has decided that his political fortunes lay outside the party but we have parted on very friendly terms and will continue to work together.”

Hmm.

This is the problem I have always had with McLaughlin. I do not know him as well as I know Bush, but in our encounters he has always been respectful and pleasant. He is more “sensitive” as a negotiator than Bush.

With Bush extremely unpopular, McLaughlin would have been expected to have been seen chewing at his opponent’s throat going in for the kill. Instead we had some speeches that amounted to nothing much more than a sabre rattling and some childish walk outs from the LA. We also had a vote of no confidence motion against the Premier that had first been touted by Miller. It was impossible to win and only showed the rest of the world what a shambles we are in and the Cayman Islands is not a good place to invest.

To make matters even worse, we then were subjected to some amateur theatrics outside the LA by the opposition, watched by surprised tourists with even poor Consuelo Ebanks (the only good performer) being brought in on a wheelchair to act as Madame Speaker. What the purpose of all this nonsense was still beats me.

The UDP had the whole LA to themselves and business carried on without them having any opposition, although they may have not noticed any difference!

Bush has not had any such trouble with MLA’s leaving his ranks. They have all stuck by him no matter. They are loyal because Bush demands loyalty. “If you are not with me, you are against me.” That is his motto and he means it.

I didn’t expect Bush to remove his expat income tax proposal and my estimation of him went up quite a few notches when he did. I am convinced, however, it was not a policy he really wanted and I suspect he has been under enormous pressure from the UK to inflect a tax system upon us because that is the system they know. It is an easy solution and even if it stymies growth and causes much misery it is an accountancy tool and looks good on paper. Aren’t we all run by accountants? And just look at the mess they have made of the world but it doesn’t matter to them.

So there is Bush’s strength. He hasn’t had the misfortune to be over educated. He has learnt by his own wits and I am convinced after watching his performance at Wednesday’s (8) Public Meeting at the Mary Miller Hall that he most certainly does have the “emotional intelligence” ingredient.

Until McLaughlin can show some cunning and attack Bush whilst he is still weak he will never become the leader he so wishes to be. He spoke out with nothing but puff and wind against Bush’s proposals and outrageous statements when fire and brimstone was wanted. At no time did he come up with his own budget proposals nor a long term strategic plan. Why? I am mystified. Why didn’t he get help from the business community? He must know the “experts” in this. Instead he was content to see Bush struggle and hope he would drown in his own mess.

What we wanted was to see another leader. One we could turn to. One who had another plan for this country. We would have listened. We’d have welcomed it. A leader leaves all the moans and groans, the marches, the placard waving, the walkouts and the blogs to others. The leader leads from the front and says, “The plan I am outlining now is far more workable that the premier’s and here’s why.”

Then the premier has to shoot it down.

Now McLaughlin has something to deal with far worse than Bush has. He has lost Arden, his most charismatic and popular member and he cannot afford to do that. And his response, “We have parted on very friendly terms.” Good God man Arden is destroying you!

Whether we like it or not I can see only one leader. You may not agree with me, but if you don’t, who is the other?