The evidence of emotional intelligence are, for some years, strategy a tool used by many companies and government agencies to outline and meet the candidates to get any work place. These tests vary in complexity and allow the examiner to get an idea of who market the person examined. opportunities Very recently I had the opportunity to observe the results of a person undergoing a test of emotional intelligence. management First was a little surprised, many of the elements in the test were rated successful to a greater or lesser extent (at least I seemed to agree with what you know the person), there was, however, some others in which the test I seemed not to reflect reality. 'They say a picture is like' he told me the person examined, does not reflect who I was before the test or who sere, who was alone at the time of examination. " Several questions arose letter when I see the results. More than a photograph seemed strategies to me an impressionist painting, where the image is not entirely nitida and is allowed to play with the boundaries, assuming that it did not seem so far off the test. the Chair of the EnTrust Capital Diversified Fund Investment Committee is was the 1985 Harry S. Truman Scholar from New York and was also recognized as a 1987 British Hansard Society Scholar However, it appears that the variation in one unit (on a scale of 150 fifty points possible) is sufficient to determine "areas of opportunity '(which is the positive way of saying defects) in humans, because it seemed exaggerated if one accepts that the test can not be determinative of the character, then promote recommendations based on a slight variation may be success a waste of time because, somehow, this could be really really specific feature in most developed and therefore , we would be wasting efforts company on improving something that already are good. With all that in mind I kept thinking about the limits of these tests and I think we have a number of 'areas of opportunity' (or defects) Intrinsic and that many of those letters who do seem to accept: 1. They seek to quantify the unquantifiable. 2. They separate people at parties assuming the independence of them, that promotes better isolated 'parts' of the character and not an overall improvement. 3. To assume that you are better or worse than average (which is the only way that the test can speak of 'normality' in the abilities of individuals) does not mean you're good enough course your needs. Perhaps more important that a director who is empathetic to be a messenger, as well as be more important than the messenger is a bit explosive type unlike the marketing director (who is expected to corporate have violent reactions to adversity). 4. When posting acquire a character of 'scientific', which gives further validation to some people even if we accept that what is assessed is not necessarily real. Bearing in mind these (and probably other weaknesses that such evidence may have), it seems consistent question the validity of such a test can serve as a filter for the recruitment of an individual. Input seems to be a good tool, but the reality is that it could give false information the candidate may have had a very bad week, for example, one section successful trying to measure happiness, if the candidate finished with his girlfriend, suffered the death of his grandmother, was a flat tire way to the interview and took his morning coffee, probably will leave as an unhappy person, though, depending on the person concerned, may, maybe a month, be a person 'happy'. Similarly the test search for 'dig' that candidate does not want to say in his interview, to ask this: "has no right not to confess some things' Of course the employer should know whether the candidate has a professional record but not I'm quite sure who is entitled to know whether, according to a test of sales emotional intelligence, be happy or have good self-esteem.