Emotional Intelligence ... or EQ

[Ocean's Edge]

Does EQ play a greater role in 'success' than IQ?

12 Elements of Emotional Intelligence

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course, to be successful you don't have to be smart, you have to be likable.

[Ocean's Edge]

well - smart and likeable is nice.. but yeah likeable seems to be the more important factor

[Lamplighter]

But then how do we explain the Bill Gates, Mitt Romney's, and some Lindsey's (Graham/Lohan) of the world ?

[Ocean's Edge]

because all generalities are inherently false, including this one?

But no - its not that you CAN'T succeed without Emotional Intelligence - it just betters your chances

Dale Carnegie has been teaching it as "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for a couple decades now, and while I'm not a big Dale Carnegie fan (it comes off swarmy ands used car salesman sometimes) ... but there is a lot in that, that makes sense ... about how to help people LIKE you

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then when the like you, they trust you. Then you can stab them in the back, and rob them blind.

[jimhelm]

It has worked for me. People like me. You like me. I'm very successful here in the cellar.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Of course, to be successful you don't have to be smart, you have to be likable.

Unfortunately, studies have shown that there is a natural bias against considering successful women to be likeable.

Can't recall the details of the study I read about now, but basically two groups of people were given a case study of a succesful and ambitious upper-level manager. the only detail that was changed was that for one group a male name was used and for the other a female name.

There were no differences in perceptions of competency (which was a nice surprise for the researchers) or success, but the group with the male case study indicated a high level of likeability (they said they owuld like to work for them, thought they would be good company etc) whereas the group wth the female case study indicated a very low likeability_ too strident, too aggressive, wouldn't want to work for her, didnt think she'd be good company.

[infinite monkey]

I know women still struggle to make the same pay for the same job. I know there are still some glass ceiling particles left. I know that women in power have to play by different rules than men.

BUT, having said that, I don't think being a woman in charge means said woman has to be a raging beeatch. And I've seen that, a lot. It's like, to compete with men, they have to be men: tough, hard, and ready to swing the hammer to bring about the 'respect' they probably don't get from their immediate peers or even superiors.

The funny thing is, most of the men who I've worked for, while assertive, while go-getters, seem to be much easier to get along with. It's like there's nothing to prove so they don't have swing any hammers.

I've seen both sides: I have seen ineffectual male managers and I have seen wonderful female managers. But at a certain point some women lose their womaninity, lest they lose credibility (in their minds, in the minds of the biggest wigs?) I don't think it has to be like that. But I've never made my way high up in any kind of bigger corporation so I don't know. I lack the mighty hammer, but I can be assertive, rather than aggressive. I'm not sure that's enough; from what I've seen you gotta be stone cold hard.

I think men are easier to work with than women. But that is only my personal experience. Still, it comes from a lot of years of working in a variety of disciplines.

Hey, I'm a woman. I love women, hear us roar. I was so impressed with the Swooper (so smart, beautiful, strong) until I somehow ended up on the wrong end of the Swoop Stick. Once you're on the wrong end, you may as well say your prayers.

I think it's very difficult to walk that fine line for any manager, but some are much better than others, on both sides of the gender line. Emotional intelligence is difficult to gauge, and I think it means different things for a lot of people.

[Lamplighter]

I usually try to avoid the generalities of differences between men and women, but one thing that intrigues me
... maybe because I'm male and can't keep up with the women's mode of discussion... is this:

In small groups, several women all seem to be able to speak at once,
and everyone is able to keep up with each of the various threads.
And no one seems to take offense at their remarks being lost amid the dialog.

But when men talk in a meeting/group, usually one speaks at a time.
Other men wait for a chance to jump in and take the stage,
or the speaker uses various techniques to retain the center of attention.

The TV talk shows are good examples of this happening, but it happens at work meetings too.

Then, in mixed meetings there are opportunities for hard feelings
developing when one style gains prevalence over the other.

[Undertoad]

I have had 10 men bosses and 5 women bosses and the genders are pretty much not part of whether they are effective or not.

The last woman boss I had was utterly ineffective because she was just following and echoing the lead of the ineffective men bosses in her vicinity

But this is because she was promoted by the least competent man bosses I have seen.

I can only conclude that 85% of problems with woman bosses are due to the man bosses that are above them in the glass ceiling.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I can only conclude that 85% of problems with woman bosses are due to the man bosses that are above them in the glass ceiling.

Did you just say that 85% of problems are due to upper management?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Unfortunately, studies have shown that there is a natural bias against considering successful women to be likable.

Can't recall the details of the study I read about now, but basically two groups of people were given a case study of a successful and ambitious upper-level manager. the only detail that was changed was that for one group a male name was used and for the other a female name.

Case studies aren't the same as people. A case study doesn't smile, shake your hand, offer you coffee.
A likable person may not turn out to be an effective manager, but they have a much better chance of being given the opportunity to try.
Unlikable people have less opportunity to be promoted to their level of incompetence.

[DanaC]

No, but the point is, when presented with the same details of a successful and effective manager along with anecdotal stuff about their interaction style, but with the gender given as male to one group and female to another group, the group who thought the person was female all indicated that they expected a low level of likeability from her. The group with the male name all expected a high level of likeability. The groups answering were mixed. Women also expected that the female would be unlikable and the male likeable, despite them being the same person with the same achievement level and same anecdotal character interactions.



[eta] In terms of interaction: the groups also indicated how specific instances affected the likeability of the subject. When given an example of how they interacted with the people they managed, that interaction when it had a male name on the study was seen to show that the person was confident and straight talking, fun, and a bunch of other positives. When the same interaction had a female name on the study it was seen to show that she was confident, strident, overly ambitious, cold and a bunch of other negatives.

Both groups thought that their case study manager was effective, competant, hard working and deserving of their success. But they thought they would enjoy working for him...but wouldn't enjoy working for her. They thought he would be good company, and that she would not be.

All they had to do was change the name on the file. Same behaviours, interactions and successes. But those specific interactions (managing their staff) made him both successful and likeable, but her successful and unlikeable.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I appreciate what you're saying about the study revealing pervasive general attitudes... or at least reinforcing the study-er's preconceived notions.
But this is big picture stuff, and there are always exceptions to any big picture.

Be the exception, buck the trend, if you are likable you may have a chance. If you are smart, but unlikeable, or even just dull, it won't likely happen. If you look at that study and say I'm screwed so why bother, it definitely won't happen. General attitudes get changed one exception at a time.