Hi Kasrawy
I suppose we have missed your test. Hope you have done well; there are some professors that give credit for healthy involvement in course material. And expressing a disagreement does signal involvement. Let me suggest that the key to deciphering the flaw in your argument is your words, "I mean we are all people".
Anti-thesis to emotionalism... For certain there is a high degree of a masculinised European ideal of professional rationality that helped form earlier concepts of professionalism. And these early gender contributions did promote a sort of "anti-thesis to emotionalism", at least at the public interface; the business of business is business, numbers crunched, levels of abstractions to avoid the emotions, on and on. However one could well argue that below that public interface, it was the emotional intelligence of the stake holders that helped move those stake holders within the frameworks in which they played.
The public interface... We on a global scale have experienced a massive gain in knowledge and explosions of technologies. We are connected by fewer degrees of separation, connected virtually instantly and the former clubs of the rich and famous, clubs of power centers have been opened to us. We know within minutes of a
CEO at BP making an off-the-cuff comment, "I want my life back", following the tragic death of the oil rig workers in the US, with millions of gallons of oil spewing in the waters killing a local economy; this man, at the top of a company power structure; is busted. I tell you the former boundaries of the public interface are shattered.
You wrote, "I mean we are all people"; the CEO at BP forgot that, you should not make the same mistake.
I mean we are all people... If we worked in an area where a fixed set of rules applied, we would apply hard science. If we work with sets of humans where not only individual's opinions, wants, expectations, and more, shift, then we must move to soft science. And we add groups and more, with the resulting trends and styles and on and on, we are left with companies that succeed not necessarily by getting it right, but rather, getting it less wrong. I tell you the advent of instant communication, in an age of reality that exposes every word and action to everyone, takes companies out of that which can be "attained by purely logical thinking" and into a mode of thinking that is inclusive of emotion.
Emotions are a mere barrier... You wrote that, "emotions are a mere barrier that keeps human beings from attaining the 'perfect status-quo'. The idea that there is a "perfect status-quo" is a limited, subordinate view of a static hierarchy which has limited shelf-life in today's interlocking, global business environment; it is at best a local phenomena. And one could argue that the essence of such a "perfect status-quo" is emotion, driven by our social instincts to fit [herd]. If it can be obtained with people, it must be done with the attributes of people, by nurturing and developing emotions. In a real way, "purely logical thinking" in the context of, "I mean we are all people", must be focused on the social glue that bounds people to a "status-quo". In a more lengthy discussion we could speak of these things in terms of economies of emotional cohesion, arguing that at each node, there are emotional constraints that the stake holders of that node, navigate, where those that navigate most successfully, have advantage.
Right place at the right time... There is wisdom that says, 'the race is not always to the swift but time and chance play a part'. This wisdom does give value to "being in the right place at the right time" and experience teaches that in any game, the level of talent for that game is helpful. Indeed one talent is to "spot the important issues" with a degree of intellect for analysis and solution; it is the "solution" part however where EI talents excel. To 'remove all who oppose an idea' has been played many times with limited success, few have such power, rather leaders must have followers and EI gives the leader advantage, including access to the paths to more power.
In sum it is untrue that "in all cases the company's benefit always lies with the workers' ability to suppress these emotions and act in a purely logical (even calculating) conduct". Rather in today's media connected, more class flattened, public empowered business climate, the company often benefits directly through the workers' ability to apply emotional intelligence.
What say you?
)