EQ vs. IQ: Why Do Smart People Fail?



Learn Management Articles on management-info.biz. EQ vs. IQ: Why Do Smart People Fail? article will help answer your questions on Management Articles.We at management-info.biz specialize in Management Articles. Management Articles at management-info.biz provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Why do smart people fail? Why people who are emotionally intelligent succeed while those with merely a moderate IQ considerably fail? First we need to understand that emotional intelligence (EQ) is not the opposite of IQ; EQ is actually complementary to IQ resembled in academic intelligence and cognitive skills, and studies actually show that our emotional states affect the way our brain functions as well as its processing speed (Cryer qtd. in Kemper). Studies have even shown that Albert Einstein's superior intellectual ability may have been linked to the part of the brain that supports psychological functions, dubbed the amygadla. The natures of EQ and IQ differ however in the ability to learn and develop them. IQ is a genetic potential that is established at birth and happens to be fixed after a certain age (pre-puberty) and can not be developed nor increased after then. EQ on the contrary can be learned, developed and improved at any age, and studies have actually shown that our ability to learn emotional intelligence increases as we get older. Another difference is that IQ is a threshold capability that can only show you the road to your career and gets you working in a certain field but it is EQ that walks through that road and gets you promoted in that field. Therefore, striking a balance between IQ and EQ is an important element of managerial success. For some extent, IQ is a driver of productive performance; however IQ-based competencies are considered 'threshold abilities' i.e. the skills needed for you to do an average job. On the other hand, EQ-based competencies and skills are by far more effective, especially at higher levels of organizations where IQ differences are negligible. When a comparative study matched star performers against average ones in top organizational levels, 85 % was attributed to EQ-based competencies rather than IQ (250). Dr. Goleman says that even though organizations are different, have different needs, it was found that EQ contributed by 80-90% of predicting success in organizations in general (251). EQ vs. IQ: Case Study To better illustrate the value-added of EQ competencies relative to IQ, we refer to the case, which was conducted by Dr. Goleman and two renowned EQ researchers, to analyze how EQ competencies contributed to profits in a large accounting firm (251). First, the participants' IQs and EQs were tested and analyzed thoroughly, then they were organized in work teams and each work team was trained on one form of EQ competency like self-management and social skills; however they left one team with participants with a high IQ to act as a control for the study. Then when they evaluated the economic value-added of EQ competencies and IQ, the results were remarkable. The team with high social skills scored a 110% incremental profit, while the self-control partners scored a massive 390% incremental profit which was valued at $ 1,465,000 more profit per year. Conversely, the partners with high cognitive and analytical skills, reminiscent of IQ, added just 50% incremental profit, which indicate that IQ give support to performance but this support is limited owing to its being a threshold capability; EQ-based competencies apparently supports performance far more.


How To Be Funny! - Earn 60% of $49.95 per sale! One of a kind niche e-book teaching people how to be funny in just 7 days flat!
A Second Home In New Zealand. - Unique guide reveals insider secrets on how to migrate, live, work or invest in New Zealand the smart way.


Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81

More Articles:


1. Deciding What to Delegate By Andrew E. Schwartz
DECIDING WHAT TO DELEGATE: Once the benefits of delegation are established and obstacles removed, the next step in the delegation process is to decide what work can and should be delegated. In general, work to be delegated should adhere to the following guidelines: — It can be handled adequately down the line. — All necessary information for decision making is also available down the line. — The work involves operational detail rather than planning or organization. — The task does not require …

2. Motivating For Higher Performance By Linda Carter
Employee motivation is probably the most important single manageable factor for success and profitability of all the facets of specialty store retailing. It is too vital to be handled on a hit or miss basis, depending on the whim or spirit that stirs the store owner or manager from time to time.To be effective, employee motivation must be promoted on a day-to-day, month-to-month basis. It is a function that can and will pay enormous dividends.There are almost as many effective ways of motiva…

3. I Can't Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does - Power, Accountability, and Consequences By Matt Beane
People who work with us often struggle with this dilemma: in theory, they come to believe that it would be very helpful to use our approach with people who have more power than they do, and in practice, sometimes it seems too risky to try. Some examples of things that feel too risky include raising questions with your boss about his or her performance, disagreeing publicly with people who have more power , or otherwise sharing information that might lead you or the person in power to feel put …

4. Agenda-ize to Make Your Meetings More Productive By Larry Galler
Every business that I have ever seen has meetings of some kind. Some are productive but the vast majority of meetings start late, rehash some old stuff, and end even later, rarely producing much in the way of progress. It seems that many meetings happen by inertia, existing because they always have existed and will always exist no matter if they produce anything of value. This is expensive in terms of wasted time and talent. If your business is in this endless loop of non-productive meetin…