The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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)?
Well my IQ is 166, and I haven't seen an EQ test I would respect except perhaps Meyrs Briggs if it is one.
My experience is that it is usually the manager's intelligence that is the problem, not mine, and if it is a woman, then she has to assert her EQ over my IQ and I have to take it castrate on the floor on my knees.
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)?
Well my IQ is 166, and I haven't seen an EQ test I would respect except perhaps Meyrs Briggs if it is one.
My experience is that it is usually the manager's intelligence that is the problem, not mine, and if it is a woman, then she has to assert her EQ over my IQ and I have to take it castrate on the floor on my knees.
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)?
ernestm wrote: ↑January 26th, 2022, 12:03 am
Well my IQ is 166, and I haven't seen an EQ test I would respect except perhaps Meyrs Briggs if it is one.
My experience is that it is usually the manager's intelligence that is the problem, not mine, and if it is a woman, then she has to assert her EQ over my IQ and I have to take it castrate on the floor on my knees.
LuckyR wrote: ↑January 26th, 2022, 12:20 am
Sounds interesting. Can you give some details...
...and can you clarify the source of your dissatisfaction? In a very few words, you have managed to hint that your target might be women or female managers ("she"), people/managers with lower IQs than you, people/managers with higher EQs than you, or just the concept of EQ itself?
I believe that they are equally necessary. For example, if someone had only IQ they could not think about the problem humanly whereas with only EQ they could not consider it rationally.
Well generally speaking Ive found with an IQ of 160, ALL managers consider me 'alpha risk' because they can't intimidate me into honoring their bad decisions. I dont really have an opinion on EQ as I said.
the most productive management model is both a HI EQ person that is in charge and at the right-hand an IQ Master. They trust each other and know about the skills of each other. Together they are powerful.
Rolling these into the same human just doesn't happen.
ernestm wrote: ↑January 27th, 2022, 5:56 am
Well generally speaking Ive found with an IQ of 160, ALL managers consider me 'alpha risk' because they can't intimidate me into honoring their bad decisions. I dont really have an opinion on EQ as I said.
Interesting. I don't follow how knowing the correct decision (IQ) leads to resistance to intimidation (confidence), necessarily. It could definitely happen that way, but it doesn't have to happen that way.
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.
But managing workers definitely affects workplace efficiency. If the manager has no (or minimum) knowledge of what the people who are being managed by him do, he will easily be fooled by smart workers. Or, his managing will make the workers frustrated because he only knows to manage people, but not to manage work. This is usually seen when a particular department gets a manager from a completely different department.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑January 13th, 2022, 9:11 pm
...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.
I think bullying and managing workers according to their abilities and passion towards work have a clear demarcation. Fellow workers of a particular worker will understand the reason behind the manager being rough on him, whether it is simply for bullying, or because of his attitudes and less efficiency.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
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.
But managing workers definitely affects workplace efficiency. If the manager has no (or minimum) knowledge of what the people who are being managed by him do, he will easily be fooled by smart workers. Or, his managing will make the workers frustrated because he only knows to manage people, but not to manage work. This is usually seen when a particular department gets a manager from a completely different department.
In my experience A) most managers are not considered good at their jobs and B) most of the bad managers are worse at managing people than managing work.
Sushan wrote: ↑January 28th, 2022, 10:05 pm
If the manager has no (or minimum) knowledge of what the people who are being managed by him do, he will easily be fooled by smart workers.
A good manager knows that there must be trust between managers and those they supervise. Those who focus on trying to anticipate the ways in which they will be "fooled" by untrustworthy employees are already on the wrong track, IMO and IME.