Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Emotional Intelligence At Work: A Personal Operating System for Career Success by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt

Even though it is seldom acknowledged, the truth is that business runs on emotion—yours and almost everyone else’s. And that emotion is often negative, leading us into bewilderment, dysfunction, and failure.

(Location 28 of Kindle version)

What is more useful when it comes to the working and management ability of a person; Is it the ability to reason and solve problems (IQ), or is it the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions (EQ)?

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the January 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Emotional Intelligence At Work: A Personal Operating System for Career Success by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt

Even though it is seldom acknowledged, the truth is that business runs on emotion—yours and almost everyone else’s. And that emotion is often negative, leading us into bewilderment, dysfunction, and failure.

(Location 28 of Kindle version)

What is more useful when it comes to the working and management ability of a person; Is it the ability to reason and solve problems (IQ), or is it the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions (EQ)?

I would not equate "the working and management" abilities. Working (if technical) can depend solely on IQ, but management (of coworkers) is definitely more dependant on EQ, which is why so many in management are terrible at it.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Emotional Intelligence At Work: A Personal Operating System for Career Success by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt

Even though it is seldom acknowledged, the truth is that business runs on emotion—yours and almost everyone else’s. And that emotion is often negative, leading us into bewilderment, dysfunction, and failure.

(Location 28 of Kindle version)

What is more useful when it comes to the working and management ability of a person; Is it the ability to reason and solve problems (IQ), or is it the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions (EQ)?

I would not equate "the working and management" abilities. Working (if technical) can depend solely on IQ, but management (of coworkers) is definitely more dependant on EQ, which is why so many in management are terrible at it.

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree. But management is not only managing people, but also taking timely and correct decisions. For that, one needs a high IQ, and I believe this is the area where managers commonly fail rather than managing people.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the January 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Emotional Intelligence At Work: A Personal Operating System for Career Success by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt

Even though it is seldom acknowledged, the truth is that business runs on emotion—yours and almost everyone else’s. And that emotion is often negative, leading us into bewilderment, dysfunction, and failure.

(Location 28 of Kindle version)

What is more useful when it comes to the working and management ability of a person; Is it the ability to reason and solve problems (IQ), or is it the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions (EQ)?

I would not equate "the working and management" abilities. Working (if technical) can depend solely on IQ, but management (of coworkers) is definitely more dependant on EQ, which is why so many in management are terrible at it.

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree. But management is not only managing people, but also taking timely and correct decisions. For that, one needs a high IQ, and I believe this is the area where managers commonly fail rather than managing people.

We are prisoners of our experience. You have observed managers who manage people better than the business. I have observed the opposite. Regardless, making business decisions is more about experience in the business than strict IQ. Unless you are using "IQ" as a euphemism for mental capacity (which it is not).

MENSA members are not generally successful captains of industry, their earnings are average.

[Pattern-chaser]

I know the book title refers to "work", but I get thoroughly fed up when subjects like this, or creativity, or whatever, are always and only considered in the context of 'work'. Do we live to work, I wonder, or work to live?

P.S. Any well-rounded human being, in work or out, needs both EQ and IQ. Both are necessary, and one cannot substitute for the other.

[Pattern-chaser]

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree.

Yes, but the vast majority of managers employ bullying, harassment and 'management by fear' (of dismissal, or some other negative commercial consequence). A typical manager is more a sociopath than a high-EQ people-person. This, even though the latter produces better results. There ARE good managers around, and the results they and their staff achieve exceed their more authoritarian peers. But RL observation confirms that the bullies remain in a large majority. IQ seems to play little part in this 'sub-focus' on the OP's topic.

[LuckyR]

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree.

Yes, but the vast majority of managers employ bullying, harassment and 'management by fear' (of dismissal, or some other negative commercial consequence). A typical manager is more a sociopath than a high-EQ people-person. This, even though the latter produces better results. There ARE good managers around, and the results they and their staff achieve exceed their more authoritarian peers. But RL observation confirms that the bullies remain in a large majority. IQ seems to play little part in this 'sub-focus' on the OP's topic.

That has been my observation as well. The unspoken reality is that people who enjoy doing the work aren't motivated to stop doing the work and manage people instead. Additionally, folks who are terrible at the work are motivated to stop having to do it. Hence the situation where the work is being guided by managers who have little grasp of how to do it.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Emotional Intelligence At Work: A Personal Operating System for Career Success by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt


(Location 28 of Kindle version)

What is more useful when it comes to the working and management ability of a person; Is it the ability to reason and solve problems (IQ), or is it the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions (EQ)?

I would not equate "the working and management" abilities. Working (if technical) can depend solely on IQ, but management (of coworkers) is definitely more dependant on EQ, which is why so many in management are terrible at it.

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree. But management is not only managing people, but also taking timely and correct decisions. For that, one needs a high IQ, and I believe this is the area where managers commonly fail rather than managing people.

We are prisoners of our experience. You have observed managers who manage people better than the business. I have observed the opposite. Regardless, making business decisions is more about experience in the business than strict IQ. Unless you are using "IQ" as a euphemism for mental capacity (which it is not).

MENSA members are not generally successful captains of industry, their earnings are average.

I agree. High IQ is not always associated with high management skills. Experience in business plays a bigger roll in that. Yet, in various interviews IQ is being tested, and this shows that it has a value and impact related to management skills. IQ is tested by giving a series of problems to solve. So a person with high IQ will have the ability to look at a problem, analyze it, and solve it in most occasions, more than a person with a normal or lower IQ. But IQ is not everything, and that is why maybe the MENSA members have not shown comparatively higher skills in leadership (but I could not find such a reference on the internet).

[Sushan]

I know the book title refers to "work", but I get thoroughly fed up when subjects like this, or creativity, or whatever, are always and only considered in the context of 'work'. Do we live to work, I wonder, or work to live?

P.S. Any well-rounded human being, in work or out, needs both EQ and IQ. Both are necessary, and one cannot substitute for the other.

People can live for many things, and 'work' can be oe thing among those many things. That is why there is a group called workaholics exist. But many of us do not live to work, but work to live (for the salary). But the ultimatum, as I see it, is to be happy doing whatever you do. So we should be able to do our work happily since it is a large part of our life, and being happy while working will make us happy.

[Sushan]

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree.

Yes, but the vast majority of managers employ bullying, harassment and 'management by fear' (of dismissal, or some other negative commercial consequence). A typical manager is more a sociopath than a high-EQ people-person. This, even though the latter produces better results. There ARE good managers around, and the results they and their staff achieve exceed their more authoritarian peers. But RL observation confirms that the bullies remain in a large majority. IQ seems to play little part in this 'sub-focus' on the OP's topic.

There are people who just need some appreciation and acceptance in their working places to do their jobs well. Good managers identify such people and appreciate their good work, and get more good out of them. But even under such good managers there are people who remain in their jobs just for the sake of being. No appreciation can get any productivity from them. But they should also do some work for the productivity of the company. The only motivation that affects them is the fear of dismissal, so the manager will have to exert it on them, though he personally dislikes it.

[Sushan]

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree.

Yes, but the vast majority of managers employ bullying, harassment and 'management by fear' (of dismissal, or some other negative commercial consequence). A typical manager is more a sociopath than a high-EQ people-person. This, even though the latter produces better results. There ARE good managers around, and the results they and their staff achieve exceed their more authoritarian peers. But RL observation confirms that the bullies remain in a large majority. IQ seems to play little part in this 'sub-focus' on the OP's topic.

That has been my observation as well. The unspoken reality is that people who enjoy doing the work aren't motivated to stop doing the work and manage people instead. Additionally, folks who are terrible at the work are motivated to stop having to do it. Hence the situation where the work is being guided by managers who have little grasp of how to do it.

Correct me if I am wrong. As per my understanding you are telling that people who are made into managers are the ones that do not have any idea about how the work to be done. Yes, I see that too in many occasions. It is a fault in the hiring system. People who are employed as workers are usually have comparatively low educational and other academic qualifications than managers. But after several years of work, the workers get the real grip of the work than the managers. But such experienced workers are being managed by inexperienced managers.

But this raise another question as well. Working and managing are two different things. If a worker is made into a manager, will he be able to manage others, only because he is having better work experience?

[LuckyR]

Managing peers and inferiors (in the hierarchy of a company) needs high EQ. I agree.

Yes, but the vast majority of managers employ bullying, harassment and 'management by fear' (of dismissal, or some other negative commercial consequence). A typical manager is more a sociopath than a high-EQ people-person. This, even though the latter produces better results. There ARE good managers around, and the results they and their staff achieve exceed their more authoritarian peers. But RL observation confirms that the bullies remain in a large majority. IQ seems to play little part in this 'sub-focus' on the OP's topic.

That has been my observation as well. The unspoken reality is that people who enjoy doing the work aren't motivated to stop doing the work and manage people instead. Additionally, folks who are terrible at the work are motivated to stop having to do it. Hence the situation where the work is being guided by managers who have little grasp of how to do it.

Correct me if I am wrong. As per my understanding you are telling that people who are made into managers are the ones that do not have any idea about how the work to be done. Yes, I see that too in many occasions. It is a fault in the hiring system. People who are employed as workers are usually have comparatively low educational and other academic qualifications than managers. But after several years of work, the workers get the real grip of the work than the managers. But such experienced workers are being managed by inexperienced managers.

But this raise another question as well. Working and managing are two different things. If a worker is made into a manager, will he be able to manage others, only because he is having better work experience?

Whether one is a good manager depends in large part on what the manager's job is. If it is to manage workers or to make workplace decisions. If the former, intricate work knowledge is less important, if the latter it is essential.

[Pattern-chaser]

...there are people who remain in their jobs just for the sake of being. No appreciation can get any productivity from them. But they should also do some work for the productivity of the company. The only motivation that affects them is the fear of dismissal, so the manager will have to exert it on them, though he personally dislikes it.

Excuses for bullying don't make it into something else, something justifiable.

[AmosMorrison]

A good question is hard to find like this one. First, let me express my views through learning. Intelligence quotient is the measure of your ability to visualize things at best and thus decide on key factors with ease. This also refers to your ability of wisdom and its application in general. The emotional quotient is your ability to overcrowd your judgement through sentiments, mind-presence, and something that sparks in your mind. Both these quotients have completely different meanings to themselves but there is a deep connection among both.
Now it is time to list them through their researched definitions.
Intelligence Quotient:
IQ, or intelligence quotient, is a measure of your ability to reason and solve problems. It essentially reflects how well you did on a specific test as compared to other people of your age group. While tests may vary, the average IQ on many tests is 100, and 68 per cent of scores lie somewhere between 85 and 115.1.
While IQ can be a predictor of things such as academic success, experts caution that it is not necessarily a guarantee of life success. Sometimes people with very high IQs do not fare so well in life, while those with average IQs may thrive.
Emotional Quotient or Intelligence:
Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, control, and evaluate emotions. Some researchers suggest that emotional intelligence can be learned and strengthened, while others claim it's an inborn characteristic.
The ability to express and control emotions is essential, but so is the ability to understand, interpret, and respond to the emotions of others. Imagine a world in which you could not understand when a friend was feeling sad or when a co-worker was angry. Psychologists refer to this ability as emotional intelligence, and some experts even suggest that it can be more important than IQ in your overall success in life.

[Pattern-chaser]

Intelligence quotient is the measure of your ability to visualize things at best and thus decide on key factors with ease. This also refers to your ability of wisdom and its application in general. The emotional quotient is your ability to overcrowd your judgement through sentiments, mind-presence, and something that sparks in your mind.

EQ and IQ are complements, but not the only contributors to our discussion. Wisdom, for example, is a third such quality. There are many others too, and I think it is a mistake to focus on one or two such qualities without also taking all the others into account. There is no direct connection between wisdom and IQ, or between wisdom and EQ.

While IQ can be a predictor of things such as academic success, experts caution that it is not necessarily a guarantee of life success. Sometimes people with very high IQs do not fare so well in life, while those with average IQs may thrive.

I have - or at least, had - a high-ish IQ, in common with many contributors to this forum. While it helped to enable such success in life that I have achieved, it would be misleading to state that I was successful because of my IQ. On the contrary, being autistic, I had issues vaguely connected to EQ (and its lack) that had a far greater effect on my life.

Emotional Quotient or Intelligence:
Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, control, and evaluate emotions. Some researchers suggest that emotional intelligence can be learned and strengthened, while others claim it's an inborn characteristic.

I suspect that this is an IQ-ish view of what EQ is. I think EQ is more usefully described in less, er, scientific terms.