Forbes Article on Employees EQ - 25 views

• 
  #1 ernest1861 on 27 Feb 15

   

  This article address a continuing conversation I have had in several classes regarding employee knowledge vs employee adaptability. I have stressed in these conversations the fact that no amount of knowledge will be sufficient in the changing workplace. However, Forbes clarifies the issue by identifying the equation for a better work place, by including the EQ component. Although Forbes focuses on managers, I think Forbes could have stepped up their EQ observation component in their article; that is mention EQ is an active part most employees daily function even if they are not activlely aware of EQ.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">This article address a continuing conversation I have had in several classes regarding employee knowledge vs employee adaptability. I have stressed in these conversations the fact that no amount of knowledge will be sufficient in the changing workplace. However, Forbes clarifies the issue by identifying the equation for a better work place, by including the EQ component. Although Forbes focuses on managers, I think Forbes could have stepped up their EQ observation component in their article; that is mention EQ is an active part most employees daily function even if they are not activlely aware of EQ.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 jm143starr on 02 Mar 15

   

  This really hits home in the world of education. It many times is not seen this way, but it truly is a customer service business. I've seen firsthand, some very intelligent teachers that struggled to reach their students or relate to them. At the same time, I've worked with many principals that are extremely intelligent or have completed course work to be in the position that they are in, but struggle to truly lead their staff.
  You bring up a great point about knowledge in the work place being ever changing, but the fact that in most work places, there is going to be some situation where interpersonal communication and working with either a client or a team is required. The EQ knowledge is something that would be vital and relevant moving forward in almost all industries.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">This really hits home in the world of education. It many times is not seen this way, but it truly is a customer service business. I've seen firsthand, some very intelligent teachers that struggled to reach their students or relate to them. At the same time, I've worked with many principals that are extremely intelligent or have completed course work to be in the position that they are in, but struggle to truly lead their staff. <br /> You bring up a great point about knowledge in the work place being ever changing, but the fact that in most work places, there is going to be some situation where interpersonal communication and working with either a client or a team is required. The EQ knowledge is something that would be vital and relevant moving forward in almost all industries.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 anonymous on 03 Mar 15

   

  The article "Emotional Intelligence: What Does the Research Really Indicate?" (which I chose for this week's post) also touches on EQ and work performance, and the EQ versus IQ debate. The article provided evidence to support a positive link between EQ and success in the work place-high performers have high EQ. The article referred to several research studies that looked at different employees in a range of work settings-business (executives, managers, and clerical workers), military (recruiters and soldiers), education (school principals), restaurant (managers), and financial services (advisors), for instance; it does not appear that the type of position or setting is of much importance.
  
  The article provided an excerpt from Emotional Intelligence (2005) by Daniel Goleman, which provides a great explanation of why EQ may be more important than IQ in predicting strong leaders. It is as follows:
  
  "IQ washes out when it comes to predicting who, among a talented pool of candidates within an intellectually demanding profession will become the strongest leader. In part this is because of the floor effect: everyone at the top echelons of a given profession, or at the top levels of a large organization, has already been sifted for intellect and expertise. At those lofty levels a high IQ becomes a threshold ability, one needed just to get into and stay in the game" (pp. xiv-xv).
  
  Since many research studies suggest that high EQ is a good indicator of high performance in the work place and among leaders, it makes sense for companies to, as the Forbes article mentions, ask job candidates to complete an emotional intelligence assessment. I wonder, however, how long these assessments would be good indicators. If candidates answer questions honestly, they would, of course, continue to be good indicators. But, as more people learn about EQ and understand the skills assessed to determine high EQ, I imagine that candidates will begin answering the questions according to what will give them a high score, and in turn, get them the position, rather than what they would really do or say in a particular situation.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The article "Emotional Intelligence: What Does the Research Really Indicate?" (which I chose for this week's post) also touches on EQ and work performance, and the EQ versus IQ debate. The article provided evidence to support a positive link between EQ and success in the work place-high performers have high EQ. The article referred to several research studies that looked at different employees in a range of work settings-business (executives, managers, and clerical workers), military (recruiters and soldiers), education (school principals), restaurant (managers), and financial services (advisors), for instance; it does not appear that the type of position or setting is of much importance. <br /> <br /> The article provided an excerpt from Emotional Intelligence (2005) by Daniel Goleman, which provides a great explanation of why EQ may be more important than IQ in predicting strong leaders. It is as follows: <br /> <br /> "IQ washes out when it comes to predicting who, among a talented pool of candidates within an intellectually demanding profession will become the strongest leader. In part this is because of the floor effect: everyone at the top echelons of a given profession, or at the top levels of a large organization, has already been sifted for intellect and expertise. At those lofty levels a high IQ becomes a threshold ability, one needed just to get into and stay in the game" (pp. xiv-xv). <br /> <br /> Since many research studies suggest that high EQ is a good indicator of high performance in the work place and among leaders, it makes sense for companies to, as the Forbes article mentions, ask job candidates to complete an emotional intelligence assessment. I wonder, however, how long these assessments would be good indicators. If candidates answer questions honestly, they would, of course, continue to be good indicators. But, as more people learn about EQ and understand the skills assessed to determine high EQ, I imagine that candidates will begin answering the questions according to what will give them a high score, and in turn, get them the position, rather than what they would really do or say in a particular situation.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top