1. this does not compute, mr. smith. You’d think that the higher up you go, once you step beyond middle management, the higher your EQ the better. imho. Leadership also means en “courage” ment, I read that somewhere online.

  2. You’d think, and that’s why this is an interesting measurement! The author says, “Too many leaders are promoted because of what they know or how long they have worked, rather than their skill in managing others.”

    Check out the book, it’s a quick read.

  3. meh. you’ve read it :) and highlighted the nugget. thanks.

  4. This may also be a factor of there being little training as one moves from level to level. As one moves through the ranks, upwards, there are new and additional skill sets which need to be learned to succeed.

    Though the chart is still odd. Are there more managers with significant emotional intelligence, such that they balance out those without, who are eventually the ones who become the CEOs?

    I suppose I shall have to read the book.

  5. Actually, this diagram seems right to me, especially if you consider the number of people each group is responsible for. Supervisors and middle-management are usually the ones responsible for overseeing the most people. They are the ones who manage minor disputes between employees and oversee daily operations. I would think that that people higher up have contact with fewer people.

    I suppose the assumption underlying this idea is that emotional intelligence is ultimately essential in relating to other people. But, is managing others the most important skill for a CEO or VP to have, or is it in providing vision and direction?

Comments are closed.