Emotional Intelligence ... or EQ
Does EQ play a greater role in 'success' than IQ?
12 Elements of Emotional IntelligenceOf course, to be successful you don't have to be smart, you have to be likable.:hug:
well - smart and likeable is nice.. but yeah likeable seems to be the more important factor
But then how do we explain the Bill Gates, Mitt Romney's, and some Lindsey's (Graham/Lohan) of the world ?
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
Then when the like you, they trust you. Then you can stab them in the back, and rob them blind. :apimp:
It has worked for me. People like me. You like me. I'm very successful here in the cellar.
Of course, to be successful you don't have to be smart, you have to be likable.:hug:
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.
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.
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.
:folks:
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.
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? :D
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. :haha:
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.
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.
Who is looking at that study and thinking 'I'm screwed'?
Yes, it is a complex 'big picture'. But we live in a world where very few women are in the top tiers of any area of business and governance. And we're going backwards. The numbers of women at the top in some areas have stayed static and in others have beguin to fall.
Society is full of messages that tell us (the grand 'Us' ;p) to like succesful men for their success but not to like women for the same thing. The same behaviour that is a positive for men is seen as problematic for women. And it starts at an early age.
Here is the video that sent me off looking for articles about that study:
[YOUTUBE]18uDutylDa4[/YOUTUBE]
[eta] noticing and pointing out a cultural phenomenon is not the same as being defeated by that phenomenon.
Also:
[youtube]YUMNnzwylG8[/youtube]
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 [strike]you are[/strike] [COLOR="Blue"]someone is [/COLOR]likable [strike]you[/strike] [COLOR="blue"]they[/COLOR] may have a chance. If [strike]you[/strike] [COLOR="blue"]they[/COLOR] are smart, but unlikeable, or even just dull, it won't likely happen. If [strike]you[/strike] [COLOR="blue"]they[/COLOR] 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.
Better? :D
Hahaha. Yes. Ok. I am mollified now:P
Of course, to be successful you don't have to be smart, you have to be likable.:hug:
Depends on how you define 'success'. Money? Fame? Friends?
I'm not particularly smart, or likeable, but, I'm doing alright.
:D
Imma be a huge success today if I can get home, dump my car off, and walk down to the bar and drink and smoke and watch wild critters at the river.
That, today, would make me feel #winning. I got Eagle blood and Blue Heron DNA. I'm on a drug, it's called Infinite Monkey.
:monkeyswingingintreesmilie:
I'm on a drug, it's called Infinite Monkey.
New user title
Yeah, since my word game went over so well, might as well change my user title.
Not like anyone will notice one way or another [/pity party]
I've said it before. Life IS a popularity contest. Being competent is essential too, but when a job opens up, the boss will promote the person he likes. It's human nature. that said, people don't trust ass kissers, so be real.
The trouble is though, Jim, just returning to my current bugbear: the boss is more likely to promote the person he likes [COLOR="Wheat"](:p)[/COLOR]. But of the people working for him, and putting themselves forward for promotion, and doing all that stuff that people have to do in order to get up the ladder, he is more likely to like and therefore promote a male employee. Because the behaviours one engages in to seek success in a career make women less likeable and men more likeable.
We just see the same things differently when it's a woman or a man doing them. I do too at some level. Most of us do, it's instinctive.
I don't know what the answer is. Like the woman said, our generation will not change this, has not changed it. I do wonder if maybe things are beginning to change for the lasses on their way into these worlds now.
people love ass kissers. in my experience.
oh, and i'm sitting at the bar, outside, watching the river and the birds. :)
it's been one week since they were supposed to make a decision. asshats. ;)
I've said it before. Life IS a popularity contest. Being competent is essential too, but when a job opens up, the boss will promote the person he likes. It's human nature. that said, people don't trust ass kissers, so be real.
Maybe not life, as that depends on what you want from it, but career/job, definitely.
We just see the same things differently when it's a woman or a man doing them. I do too at some level. Most of us do, it's instinctive.
That makes the assumption in order to put [strike]yourself[/strike] oneself in a position to be promoted, one has to be a tough, no nonsense, hardass.
But someone who is truly likable, can work hard, and get others to work hard, without seeming to be a bastard. When people truly like the boss, they're happy to go the extra mile for him/her.
it's been one week since they were supposed to make a decision. asshats. ;)
Do they still have the rug burns on both their knees?
you just did what i thought you were gonna do.
ha, love th bnl
The trouble is though, Jim, just returning to my current bugbear: the boss is more likely to promote the person he likes [COLOR="Wheat"](:p)[/COLOR].
Having been a boss myself, I don't think just liking someone is enough to make you want to promote them. In fact, conversely, I've found that I like the people who do a good job in a professional situation, much more than the ones that I might have more in common with, but who are less competent.
If they happen to be good at the job, and likeable, that makes a big difference though. Most people would rather work with people they like than those they don't. Even bosses.
people love ass kissers......
I agree. Unfortunately, I don't kiss ass, so I don't have much brownie points with anyone.
I agree. Unfortunately, I don't kiss ass, so I don't have much brownie points with anyone.
No, but you have plenty of cookie points with some of us ;)
People love ass. Kissers are good too.
FIFY. ;)
I detest ass kissers.
Kissing your ass is a prelude to stabbing you in the back.
That's why you're so awesome, zen. You don't fall for their bull shit. You can see right through it because you're so smart. Say, that's a fine looking shirt you're wearing there. Did you get a haircut?
I've found that I like the people who do a good job in a professional situation, much more than the ones that I might have more in common with, but who are less competent.
We shouldn't lose sight of this. There is huge overlap between what is likeable and what is good for your organization.
that's a very good point Griff, it's the overlap that matters.
someone who's all competence and no charisma is good only for a job as a hermit.
someone who's all charisma and no competence is good only for a job as a politician.
(that sounds like a cheap shot at politicians. I like our system of government and value the work done by our legislature, executive and judiciary. "politicians" on the other hand are akin to public sector celebrities, just less interesting and more expensive.)
that sounds like a cheap shot at politicians.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.;)