IQ vs EQ is an old debate. Most cognitive psychologists claim that Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ) is a better determinant of success than Intelligence Quotient (IQ). How well individuals recognise and control their own emotions, and understand and cater to the emotions of others is obviously important in every walk of life.
Nobel Prize winner Danny Kahneman once pointed out the blindingly obvious, when he stated that people prefer to do business with people they like and trust, and will even pay a premium for this. This is why a company with a likeable (and competent) CEO will be able to put together stable teams that gel well together, even if it doesn't pay as much as the competition.
EQ is crucial even in fields where IQ counts for a lot. William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor, unquestionably had a stratospheric IQ. But he was also an unpleasant man with deeply racist views. He could not get along with colleagues, or subordinates. Several of Silicon Valley's most iconic companies were started up by people who quit Shockley's teams in disgust.
In contrast, Robert Oppenheimer was not quite in the same league as some of the scientists he oversaw in the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic weapons. But "Oppy" had the ability to put together and manage a 6,000-person team, including many intellectual divas with delicate egos. Similarly, Dr Kalam is credited with being a great manager and an inspirational leader, rather than being an engineering genius.
Many companies institute mandatory emotional intelligence programmes. Corporate coaches who specialise in social and emotional learning (SEL) courses are always in great demand. People who are temperamentally equable, high on self-confidence, empathetic, possessing initiative, and other desirable character traits outshine their IQ peers at almost everything.
Apparently, a lot of this can be taught. EQ course material borrows quite heavily from Yoga and from dramatics workshops. There is an emphasis on body language, and on breath control. Projecting a calm, serene image is believed to help. Crying or screaming obscenities is not considered useful, unless you are channelling Steve Jobs.
People are told to stand straight and gaze in the culturally appropriate direction when delivering handshakes, namaskars or bows. The American salesman cultivates a direct gaze and a firm handshake; the Japanese bow is delivered looking respectfully at the recipient's mouth; it is inappropriate to focus on cleavage when doing namaskar.
One important aspect of EQ is the ability to lie fluently and credibly. Coupled to the related ability to distinguish when somebody is telling the truth, this is indispensable. The ability to lie is essential for any senior policymaker. Unfortunately, no EQ course teaches this.
Whether at diplomacy, or in politics, or at the daily grind of administration and policing, the judicious lie is an important tool. In this era of social media and multiple online information sources, crafting a lie to be believable is more difficult. It must not be contradicted by other information that could land up in public domain.
Just as the leg spinner who uses the wrong 'un sparingly is more likely to be effective, the habitual truth-teller is more likely to get away with it, when wheeling out the occasional lie. A habitual truth-teller builds a reputation for credibility. A habitual liar is liable to be misbelieved even when being truthful.
Successive Indian governments have failed at the task of crafting credible lies. Nobody in Indian politics, or the higher echelons of bureaucracy seems to know how. The last government tied itself into knots about "zero loss auction policies". This one is doing a poor job obfuscating about "terror boats", black money repatriation, One Rank One Pension for defence personnel, commitments to protect minorities, etc. Maybe some EQ coach could fill this gap in the market by crafting a course for policymakers on the art of lying credibly?
Twitter: @devangshudatta
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
