3 ms·

> Years of drudgery and late nights in the office have a way of taking the shine off any brilliance, and, in any case, there is no incentive to hang on to it as

> Years of drudgery and late nights in the office have a way of taking the shine off any brilliance, and, in any case, there is no incentive to hang on to it as the corporate world doesn't rate it. > Rather than reward brilliance, it prefers skills that graduates can't see - good judgment, a nice way with clients, and an instinct for when to bite your lip. This is a curiously cynical perspective. "Brilliance" alone doesn't necessarily create value or pay the bills. The combination of high IQ and low EQ can be harmful to customer relationships and co-workers. The corporate world values soft skills just as much if not more than raw intelligence because soft skills can often make or break a business. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of young employees overestimate just how clever they are and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that smart ideas won't always be viable in the real world, instead of pretending that "brilliance" is some sort of panacea that companies should cling to regardless of the cost, the author should consider that pragmatic, well-rounded employees who can perform consistently might be better contributors than the brilliant, intense employees who become disillusioned whenever they don't get their way.

mpweiher 12y ago
> The combination of high IQ and low EQ can be harmful to customer relationships and co-workers. Citation? The last I read about it[1], it turned out that EQ is vastly overrated, accounting for only 1% of overall job performance, whereas IQ accounted for 14%. That's more than an order of magnitude. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-692440...
- amirmc 12y ago
  Without knowing how those studies were performed or analysed we can't really put those numbers in their proper context. "EI positively predicts performance for high emotional labor jobs and negatively predicts performance for low emotional labor jobs" (from the paper linked in the article you cite).
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Are there any studies that compare actual EQ to self-estimated EQ? In my experience, nearly everyone vastly overestimates their own EQ.
- Double_Cast 12y ago
  The link surprises me. Of all things, I had expected EQ to at least have made an impact in a company focused on sales.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  If you read carefully, one reason cognitive ability is more valuable than EQ is that people with great cognitive ability can quickly learn to simulate high EQ when they need to. So EQ actually does matter, but can be simulated with general intelligence. Anyway, I don't think the parent was talking about actual "EQ," which is a term of art that has a specific definition and measurement tools (as refenced in that article). I think he was just saying the people who believe they are much more brilliant than all their coworkers can be hard to work with, which can cause harm to a large organization.
- qubitcoder 12y ago
  That EQ takes primacy over IQ is pretty well-established in the consulting industry. In fact, this is emphasized on day one for new hires. And you move into more client-facing roles in large companies, this becomes even more important. Of course, you need the raw cognitive power to solve problems. But at the high-end of consulting, clients already assume this to be this case (otherwise they wouldn't be spending $200+/hour for people fresh out of college). What clients are looking for is more akin to a 'trusted advisor'[1]. Someone they can trust and rely on. Yes, you can be socially awkward and still get the job done. But you probably won't be considered when the next opportunity arises; what people value are relationships. If you've got that (and you have the technical chops), clients will tend to keep calling you back for years to come. Or perhaps mention you to their peers. For anyone considering working independently, I highly recommend David Maister's books. He writes clearly on earning trust, the art of listening, providing advice, establishing relationships, and so on. This is really what separates the engineers who can command top dollar for their skills in the marketplace--versus those who are viewed as just another number on a spreadsheet to minimize (in the eyes of management at most large companies). [1](http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0743212347 http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0...)

mpweiher 12y ago

> The combination of high IQ and low EQ can be harmful to customer relationships and co-workers. Citation? The last I read about it[1], it turned out that EQ is vastly overrated, accounting for only 1% of overall job performance, whereas IQ accounted for 14%. That's more than an order of magnitude. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-692440...

amirmc 12y ago
Without knowing how those studies were performed or analysed we can't really put those numbers in their proper context. "EI positively predicts performance for high emotional labor jobs and negatively predicts performance for low emotional labor jobs" (from the paper linked in the article you cite).
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Are there any studies that compare actual EQ to self-estimated EQ? In my experience, nearly everyone vastly overestimates their own EQ.
Double_Cast 12y ago
The link surprises me. Of all things, I had expected EQ to at least have made an impact in a company focused on sales.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 12y ago
If you read carefully, one reason cognitive ability is more valuable than EQ is that people with great cognitive ability can quickly learn to simulate high EQ when they need to. So EQ actually does matter, but can be simulated with general intelligence. Anyway, I don't think the parent was talking about actual "EQ," which is a term of art that has a specific definition and measurement tools (as refenced in that article). I think he was just saying the people who believe they are much more brilliant than all their coworkers can be hard to work with, which can cause harm to a large organization.
qubitcoder 12y ago
That EQ takes primacy over IQ is pretty well-established in the consulting industry. In fact, this is emphasized on day one for new hires. And you move into more client-facing roles in large companies, this becomes even more important. Of course, you need the raw cognitive power to solve problems. But at the high-end of consulting, clients already assume this to be this case (otherwise they wouldn't be spending $200+/hour for people fresh out of college). What clients are looking for is more akin to a 'trusted advisor'[1]. Someone they can trust and rely on. Yes, you can be socially awkward and still get the job done. But you probably won't be considered when the next opportunity arises; what people value are relationships. If you've got that (and you have the technical chops), clients will tend to keep calling you back for years to come. Or perhaps mention you to their peers. For anyone considering working independently, I highly recommend David Maister's books. He writes clearly on earning trust, the art of listening, providing advice, establishing relationships, and so on. This is really what separates the engineers who can command top dollar for their skills in the marketplace--versus those who are viewed as just another number on a spreadsheet to minimize (in the eyes of management at most large companies). [1](http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0743212347 http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0...)