You Know It Is Snake Oil When They Say That It Explains 75% of Success in Life

I clearly have strong beliefs about what drives human behavior, and think there is pretty strong evidence to support many of them. At the same time, I believe equally strongly that there are no magical cures for organizational and individual problems, or any one theory that explains all human behavior. Behavioral scientists battle over these issues -- and they should, it leads to better evidence -- over things like nature versus nurture, extrinsic versus intrinsic rewards, cognition versus emotion, and on and on, and each of us -- me too -- is probably unduly biased in favor of our pet theories.  There is a lot of evidence out there to fuel different arguments and I often am bewildered about what causes human behavior (remember this research about how the sawmill stopped theft....if you read this in combination with Salt Passage Research, you can get completely confused). But, in reading so much of this stuff over the years --while it is clear that some behavioral theories and interventions work better than others -- the thing I am most sure of is that there no one golden theory that is by far the most powerful and effective, and that provides the golden path to success.

The corollary to this conclusion (which is evidence-based) is that when anyone claims they are hocking a theory that explains 75% of success in life, it is safe to assume they are selling you snake oil. To quote James March once again, as I suggested in my post on Good to Great, “Most claims of originality are testimony to ignorance and most claims of magic are testimonial to hubris.”

I was reminded of this problem once again when I received an invitation for a workshop on emotional intelligence (called "EQ" sometimes) that an obviously well-meaning consultant was putting on at one of my kid's schools.  The advertisement for this event claimed that "EQ" was far more powerful for explaining success in life than "IQ," in fact, the advertisement claimed it explained 75% of success in life.  I am a big fan of the general idea behind emotional intelligence, and believe that more successful human-beings -- especially bosses --enjoy higher emotional intelligence, which researchers (the one's who apparently coined the concept and published the first studies) John Mayer and his colleagues define as "The ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one's own and others' emotions, and the ability to use that information as a guide to thinking and behavior."  As I wrote to this consultant, I definitely think that the schools in my area would be better-off if everyone -- students, teachers, and administrators-- had higher EQ, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that (despite debate about exactly what it is and how it works), that more EQ leads people to more success -- and to have more civilized human exchanges too.  

Yet, much as the main popularizer of EQ apparently did, this consultant undermines her legitimate message by making excessive claims -- in March's lingo, claims that she wielding magic.  The case of EQ is interesting because, while Goelman and his colleagues were selling it as nearly a cure all (I went to one of his speeches, and he was making outrageous claims about the amount of variance in organizational performance that were explained by a leader's EQ), more careful research and more measured claims were emerging from Mayer and other researchers.  To this point, please read what Mayer and his colleagues wrote in an article published in the American Psychologist in 2008 called "Emotional Intelligence: Now Ability or Eclectic Traits."  On page 504, they argue:

A journalistic rendering of EI created and also complicated the popular understanding of it. Goleman’s (1995) bestselling book Emotional Intelligence began with the early version of our EI model but mixed in many other personality traits including persistence, zeal, self-control, character as a whole, and other positive attributes. The book received extensive coverage in the press, including a cover story in Time magazine (Gibbs, 1995). Because the book included, in part, the theory we developed, some investigators wrongly believed that we endorsed this complex and, at times, haphazard composite of attributes as an interpretation of EI.

The journalistic version became the public face of EI and attracted further attention, in part, perhaps, owing to its extraordinary claims. Goleman (1995, p. 34) wrote of EI’s importance that “what data exist, suggest it can be as powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ.” A few years later, Goleman (1998a, p. 94) remarked that “nearly 90% of the difference” between star performers at work and average ones was due to EI. .... Our own work never made such claims, and we actively critiqued them (Mayer, 1999; Mayer & Cobb,2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,2000). More recently, Goleman (2005, p. xiii) wrote that others who believed that EI predicts huge proportions of success had misunderstood his 1995 book.

I suspect the consultant's claims about the magical powers of EQ simply were repeating these widely accepted beliefs -- apparently first perpetuated (but now denied) by Goleman.  In addition to sending this consultant the Mayer paper, I also sent her an article (summarized here) that analyzed 85 years worth of research and showed that, for better or worse, the strongest evidence we have is that IQ is mighty powerful predictor of success.  I hope I didn't come across as arrogant or overbearing when I suggested to her: "I am not an IQ freak at all, and in fact, I believe that it has a large social and economic component – and although my ideology and values press to me believe in EQ and related indicators of the ability to read and respond to others, I try to be careful to stick to the data and avoid excessive claims.  I think what you are doing is wonderful, but please be careful not to fall into the trap of making excessive claims to attract attention."

For me, all this raises an interesting question, or I suppose challenge, that I wrestle with constantly.   I believe in evidence-based management and also have strong opinions that are grounded in evidence but are also shaped by my values (e.g., no matter how much money you make, in my book you are still a loser if you are an asshole) and by the quirks of my experience in this life.   The challenge is to walk the line between selling ideas that I firmly believe can make organizations better places, without overselling them -- it is hard to do both because of the temptations (money and attention, for starters) and because, in many cases, people yearn for simple, powerful, and complete solutions to their problems (and keep asking for them even when you are careful to say that you don't have them and neither does anyone else). 

Comments

[bobsutton.typepad.com]

You know it is snake oil when they say sell anything that explains 75 of success in life.. I like it :)

[PerGynt]

It would seem that if the one thing (EQ) has so many benefits it might be more than one thing. So far I have not heard exactly what is measured to come up with a person's EQ. I am not sure whether it can be measured. I might say the same thing about maturity and rational decision making because, as far as I can tell it has almost everything to do with success in life and business. These things too defy definition.

[Christian Young]

For starters, I totally agree with the whole ashole-loser assessment, lol.

I also agree that people tend to get caught up in the hype of the philosophy of the moment or to exaggerate the effectiveness of something that worked for them (even though an entirely different approach works for just as well for someone else).

However, I'm currently on the fence regarding evidence-based management, but I'll look deeper before making any firm decision.

Thanks for the interesting read!

[Wally Bock]

So much of this seems like human nature at work. People want to know the secrets of success. There seems to be a deep-seated human belief that there is a cabal of successful people who share a special handshake and who keep their secrets of success under wraps so they can have more and more. No one has explained why they reveal these secrets only to people who sell audio programs.

People want magic, the one thing that will bring riches beyond the dreams of avarice without requiring any of that messy working and learning. They want the magic of the magus, not of David Copperfield.

In other words, it's human to crave "solutions" that don't require effort and learning. They ignore the fact that, in the real world, real magicians spend years mastering their magic and for them it's not magic at all. It's technique.

In the end you have to depend on simple sayings to keep you straight. "Things that seem 'too good to be true' usually are." And, "Things that 'can't go on forever' don't"

[Samson Malchi]

Its human tendency to follow successful people. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we have so many people buying their concept of success. If the concept helps you succeed then its a golden rule for you else its Snake Oil.

[Samson Malchi]

It is difficult to say that it is Snake Oil. Because it is human tendency to follow successful people in order to succeed in life.

Perhaps this is the reason why we have so many people selling there successful golden rules. As long as you succeed its a golden rule else its a SNAKE OIL.

[Oliver Wai]

I wonder if the need for eye-catching figures is a reflection of the short attention span of John Q Public. It takes a bit of "truthiness" to catch any attention and nobody really takes the time to read details (just ask congress). Consider this headlines:

1. "EQ is a good predictor of success"
2. "75% of all success can be attributed to EQ".

I suspect that #2 is something that would catch people's eye simply because by throwing a number into the mix, it makes it stand out by making it look "scientific". Moreover we tend to believe what already think is true so #2 seems even more enticing because it reaffirms our beliefs by giving us an instantly quotatable "scientific-like" number to back our beliefs.

[DC Jobs]

I think that one of the difficulties in finding a balance between underselling and overselling is that if you try to present the case for your service with no hype, then you risk being drowned out in the marketplace by all those hyping their products.

[Wade Anderson]

I think there is a real aspect of EQ in life. People can be incredibly intelligent but if they are unable to interact with others they may not be able to live up to their potentials. This may not be because they are unwilling to do more for an organization but that the organization may be unaware of what more the individual could be doing because they start with those they interact well with first. It's a something that definably needs to be looked at within organizations, especially today with everyone trying to get the most out of their employees.

[Randy Bosch]

New Theory!!: PQ: Panacea Quotient: Snake oil salesmen, politicians, economists and self-improvement consultants believe 100% of the time that a fool is born every minute. The other 100% of the time they believe their own shit comes in ice cream buckets. They believe they are worth 200%.

[KLB]

I think that it is human nature to look for the quick fixes in life. Even though you have a feeling that something is "snake oil" you tend to consider it for simplicities sake.

In order to be successful, one must have a balance between EQ and IQ.

[davidburkus]

I think the stat comes from twisting data about intelligence. I believe studies have found the IQ explains 25% of performance at work (note: NOT SUCCESS IN LIFE). Therefore, the pitchmen say, EQ explains the other 75%.

Which may be an emotionally intelligent conclusion, just not an intelligent one.

[W. C. Atlanta]

I think 1st and foremost, management needs to understand the people they manage are no different than themselves and aren't lab rats to be manipulated.

I've had years of seeing these things come through corporate America and can definitely say, they haven't really changed things much.

Maybe they aren't fully embraced/implemented? But maybe there just aren't simple solutions to complex human pyschology.

[working girl]

My money's on IQ - dumb and friendly will only take you so far. ;-)

[Bret Simmons]

No shortage of snake oil salesmen, Bob! I wonder if there is a study that can explain 75% of the variance in someone's propensity to believe in snake oil?

One of the biggest benefits practicing managers can get from an evidence based perspective is not necessarily knowing all the evidence based answers, but understanding that any answer they currently have is imperfect. There is always more to learn if we are willing to test our theories - especially the limits of what we currently think we know.

Keep up the great work!

[C.V.Rajan]

You are quite right. When people get attracted to a particular idea and that idea eventually becomes a breadwinner for them, they start exaggerating the benefits, because their income in now hooked to that idea!

C.V.Rajan