From The First Idea:
Through a field study, we have been able to show that the early capacities are mastered for the first time (and then continue to be further developed) during specific, predicted time intervals. [pp. 54]
No, I haven’t chased down the study yet and, no, I haven’t determined what these time periods are. I’m not done reading it. They argue that Piaget was kind of right, but that it wasn’t ringing the bell that led to causality. It was “I smile and Mother smiles back”, an emotionally laden lesson.
If they are right, then it makes sense that people with high “Emotional Quotient” would be more successful.
Comments 1
One’s so called “emotional quotient” might best be defined as his or her behaviour expressed as a correlate of the functional capability of the system in place. The behaviours exhibited by individuals within an organization are excreted as a correlate of the leadership behaviours applied to the system. As a result focusing on emotional quotient in isolation is alchemy insofar as if nothing else changes in regards the system, the behaviour of individuals affected by the system cannot reasonably be expected to change. When we discuss the significance of behaviour we will want to confine the focus to the top leadership behaviours applied within the organization. We might consider that the same holds true within the family unit, or government or other societal interfaces.
There are commonly espoused values that all human beings are endeared to, that reduced to their simplest form can be articulated as mutual trust. Subsets of mutual trust would include respect, dignity, courage, love, fairness and honesty. Behaviours within organizations will be influenced by one’s interpretation of how these values are being applied to them. The “emotional quotient”! And, when the interpretation is that one can see these values applied, consistently, in action, his or her own expression of “emotional quotient” will be interpretted favourably. As a consequence for full impact the system needs to be designed and enacted such that these values are visible, and such that existing myths that suggest for example, that my employer, or my boss, do not respect me are dispelled by introducing systems and applying leadership behaviours against these systems that create dissonance with the existing myths and beliefs.
Granted, a well adjusted upbringing where mother smiles at child, etc. contributes favourably to one’s interpretation of the occurring world, however this is not to suggest that the systems that affect individuals later in life are capable of influencing positively, or negatively the predisposition of these individuals. The problem with these disjointed approaches to emotional quotient, personal transformation, group dynamics, etc, is they focus attention on individuals and their so called personal traits as both the problem and the potential solution to the problem. In the first instance it is no business of one’s employer to set forth to “fix” them. Similarly, the organization that does not distinguish the significance of the system in its relationship with behaviour will do little to resolve the “emotional quotient” quandry and even where skills are furnished in the interest of developing emotional quotient absent adjustements to the system and top leadership behaviours, the individual will quickly be sucked back into the pre-existing influence of the system.