Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why emotional intelligence is a key pillar of diversity and inclusion
Emotional intelligence can have massive benefits for any organization, but why? How do we maximize our groups' EQ?
This series on diversity and inclusion is sponsored by Amway, which supports a prosperous economy through having a diverse workplace. Companies committed to diversity and inclusion are better equipped to innovate and drive performance. For more information, visit amwayglobal.com/our-story.
We’ve all known about IQ, shorthand for intelligence quotient, for a very long time. More recently, as studies show intelligence can be broken down into several pieces, other notions of intelligence have come to the forefront of research. One of the most prominent of these is emotional intelligence or EQ.
What is emotional intelligence?
Daniel Goleman, a psychologist and journalist who popularized the term, explains that “Emotional intelligence refers to how well we handle ourselves and our relationships.” It is another kind of brain power, but rather than helping us solve puzzles it helps us regulate our emotions and understand others.
People who have a high EQ can enjoy a variety of benefits, including a better sense of self-awareness, superior regulation of emotions, the ability to understand others, greater motivation, a broader social network, and a higher income. In an age where we are more connected than ever before with diverse people we might not share histories with, emotional intelligence is a vital tool for success.
A more harmonious and productive workplace
Emotional intelligence allows us to better understand the people we work with. This, in turn, promotes productivity in the workplace by making it easier for teams to bring out the best in everyone. While this seems like something that can be done with procedures and rules, it takes more than that to really make a team function at its best.
As Daniel Goleman explains,
“If you see a star performing team, you’re seeing a very high group IQ. But what predicts the actual productivity or effectiveness of a team is not the potential—that is, the best talents of every person—it's how people are valued on that team. It's how people feel there’s harmony, that we get along, that we surface simmering issues, that we take time to celebrate, that we know each person’s strengths and that we step aside when its time for this person to come forward. In other words, that we are a team that has a high emotional intelligence.”
Before a team can work well, the people in it have to not only be comfortable enough with one another to cooperate, but they also have to establish an environment where they understand each other and know they are appreciated. This allows each person to feel secure enough not to have to take the lead when they see another person could do it better. This cannot be done with procedures alone; it requires a level of trust only a high EQ can provide.
Is there hard data for this?
A study of polyester manufacturing teams also found that the groups with the highest EQs produced more fabric than did any other team. In this article written for the Harvard Business Review, Vanessa Druskat, an expert on EQ and professor at New Hampshire, offers many examples of how businesses can maximize the EQ a team has and reap the benefits.
Several other studies have also shown that EQ correlates with job performance better than academic achievement, quality of references, or other methods commonly used in hiring. However, the exact strength of the correlation between performance and EQ varies wildly between studies, while remaining positive.
How can I know my EQ?
There are many tests available to find out what your score is. Here are three great tests to start with.
How can we raise EQ in the workplace?
There are many ways to raise EQ without having to resort to cheesy teambuilding exercises. Vanessa Druskat tells us that there are many simple methods of increasing EQ. It might be less about flashy actions and more about attitudes.
“Group emotional intelligence is about the small acts that make a big difference. It is not about a team member working all night to meet a deadline; it is about saying thank you for doing so. It is not about in-depth discussion of ideas; it is about asking a quiet member for his/her thoughts. It is not about harmony, lack of tension and all members liking each other: it is about acknowledging when harmony is false, tension is unexpressed, and about treating others with respect.”
2. Understand the team member’s strengths and weaknesses.
3. Know how to motivate those team members.
4. Have rules that reflect team values and make people feel valued.
5. Have systems to deal with problems that don’t, in turn, unduly increase stress.
6. Make sure all voices are heard.
7. Encourage group bonding.
The Emotional Intelligence and Diversity Institute is a wonderful resource for understanding what makes diversity work, and how to extend diversity into inclusivity. It has a set of questions that individuals can ask themselves to tap into their EQ in moments of ambiguity, and to develop long-term intercultural literacy skills:
- What else could a particular behavior mean?
- What might be the reasons for the person’s behavior?
- How might it feel to be in that person’s situation?
- When have I been in a similar situation and felt that way?
How diversity boosts EQ
Daniel Goleman suggests aiming for a diverse workplace as a part of any strategy to increase EQ. His primary argument is one of pure potential, as seen in this interview:
…So when it comes to diversity, you’re seeing people who have a range of backgrounds, of understandings, and of abilities. And the more diverse team is going to be the one with the largest array of talents, and so it will be the one with the potential best performance.
He is on to something. Diverse workplaces require us to think outside of our cultural boxes and encourage the same skills that emotional intelligence promotes. The same activities that can help ease intercultural issues in an office setting, such as shared activities between people of differing backgrounds and outings to places unfamiliar to some workers, would also work to help people develop emotional intelligence. It can be a virtuous cycle.
In a Dutch study on the subject, diverse teams made up of people who were willing to learn performed better than homogenous teams. It supports the notion that when people have high EQs and are willing to learn, diversity becomes a limitless resource. However, the study also showed that that potential was wasted on teams who were less open to people who were different from them.
Dr. Goleman summarizes the statistics on the benefits of diversity when he says: “The more diverse the members of the team, the better it’s potential performance will be.” This is only true, however, if the team is willing and able to take advantage of the tools it has.
Emotional intelligence is a vital part of any effective team. Despite the numerous benefits of promoting it, people still only have a vague idea of what it is or how it can help them and their business. As the old saying goes, “teamwork makes the dream work,” and emotional intelligence can help make teamwork go much further than ever before.
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work