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. Measure for Measure By Ed Newman
Can you imagine playing hockey without a goal? Basketball without hoops and nets? Football without a goal line? Golfing without holes or greens?There may be leagues where it doesn’t matter whether anyone is keeping score, but not the big leagues. Champions of the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the Masters can only be determined when there is someone keeping score.In hockey, keeping score means counting the number of times the puck gets into the net. In golf, keeping score means counting th…

2. Strategic Organizational Learning By Michael Beitler
The cost of training in North American companies exceeds $60 billion per year. Try to visualize that. Picture a stack of 1,000,000 $1 bills. Now try to picture 60,000 of those stacks. Amazed? Then consider this fact: estimates of training costs worldwide approach a quarter of a trillion dollars ($250,000,000,000) when indirect costs and opportunity costs are included. Do you find those numbers as difficult to comprehend as I do?Understandably, senior executives are concerned about the ROI (ret…

3. Problem-Solving Success Tip: Define the Problem First By Jeanne Sawyer
Define the Problem First. It seems obvious, but how many times have we gone to a problem-solving meeting and the discussion started with either whose fault was it or an assertion about the proper solution?Explain what the problem is—what went wrong, what are the symptoms, what is the impact on your business and your customer’s business. These are the things that someone knows at this point in the problem solving process. If the someone is not you, and you’re leading the problem-solving effort,…

4. Managing or Coping? By Vernon Stent
Why do we have managers? I asked this question on a recent seminar and got into an intense argument with one of the attendees who was a large employer! I like to mix it a little and what fun it was to ask an employer to justify the existence of his managers:Vernon: Why do you have managers? Employer: To manage Vernon: You mean, to cope Employer: I mean, to manage Vernon: If not "manage" as in "to cope", "manage" as in ...what? Employer: Our managers are not just coping, they are making judgem…