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. Delegate to Accelerate Success
During the first season of the television reality show, The Apprentice, Donald Trump would give the ultimate winner the dream job of working for him, running one of his divisions and earning $250,000 per year. On the final episode, the choice came down to two candidates, Bill Rancic and Kwame Jackson, for the “ultimate” job. Both were very qualified. Bill Rancic was the owner of a successful Internet cigar business grossing over one million dollars a year, and Kwame Jackson was a graduate of Ha…

2. How to Say "No" By Steve Kaye
Rejection hurts. No one likes to give it or to receive it. We all wish we could live in a world where everyone said "yes." And yet sometimes you have to say "no."Here is how to say "no."> Be CourageousSome people feel afraid to say "no." They may either expect a hostile reaction or they want to be helpful. As a result, they end up inconveniencing both themselves and other people.Recognize that it is okay to say "no." In fact, most people would rather receive a solid "NO" than an insincere "…

3. Feedback is a Gift
Feedback is a gift - when done properly. The very word strikes fear into the hearts of millions of workers every day, because the only time they get feedback is when it is rolled by a manager who wants to criticise - yet put a bit of positive spin on it. Ever been there? I know I have and it sets off that internal groan, because you know just what's coming. Feedback is a gift - remember that at the start of this piece? It can be a gift where used constructively, consistently and with goodwill. I…

4. Entitlement Programs Kill Corporate Productivity By Bill Lee
In articles I’ve written over the years, I have used “laissez-faire,” a term more frequently used to characterize governments than businesses, to describe a rather laid-back management style. When I use this term, I am referring to management personnel who put very little pressure on employees to achieve their full potential by pushing them toward peak performance levels.Laissez-faire managers had much rather maintain a stress-free relationship with their personnel than face the antagonistic …