sherilm

I wrote a piece on this exact point and how much you should actually worry about EQ:

Technical and cognitive skills are clearly "threshold factors" that cannot be ignored— they get you in the game and let you keep playing it. While they might not be sufficient, they sure are a necessary condition for success in most domains.

In order to stand out on your EQ skills you have to be first competitive on your technical/cognitive skills. It will be tough to compete just on your social skillset.

EQ is probably not a differentiator at lower levels and early stages of your career. Technical chops, cognitive skills and execution will probably help you stand out more. It's only when you move on to the managerial and executive ranks that EI/EQ starts becoming a differentiator, what Goleman calls a "discriminating competency".

Even at higher levels, EQ is not a given. Where it can probably make the most impact is in avoiding pitfalls once you get there, what researchers call “leadership derailment", rather than being an active mechanism in reaching there.

More here: "Misled and Oversold on Emotional Intelligence" https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/

“Kings and philosophers shit—and so do ladies.”

"On the highest throne in the world, we are seated, still, upon our arses."

Walked away from a successful career myself. Albeit, in my case I had all my financial ducks in a row. So take whatever I am saying with that in mind.

One thing we have to realize is that the anxiety is not going anywhere. You are trading one form of anxiety for another. But that doesn't mean anxiety is a signal of some sort.

If you don't quit, it's the anxiety of not taking action which you know is good for you. If you do quit, it's the anxiety of things not working out per plan.

I would also look closer into some of your "givens":

>"the same lifestyle I have now" - How do you define lifestyle? Money is one factor. Time, Energy, Identity are equally important, but often forgotten.

What you are attempting to do is by no means easy. But it's doable. It helps to have some frameworks in mind. I collected some over the years. You might find them useful: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frame...

This is not directly answering you question but might help.

On qualities vs outcomes: Sometimes figuring out what qualities and values you want to cultivate can help prioritize what options to exercise or go for. Often we focus on outcomes, forgetting about the person we are becoming in the process of getting there.

On purpose:

A counter-intuitive property of purpose is that you have to “manufacture” it rather than go “looking” for it. Whatever you are doing right now can be equally purposeful.

Another mistake is to look for it on the “inside”. That’s one half of the equation. The other ignored half is looking on the “outside”. And by definition there are more things on the outside that we aren’t aware of or will ever be.

I collected some useful frameworks over the years that you might find useful. You can find them here: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frame...

Some thoughts:

> "excitable" or "jolly": This by itself is not a problem unless it is out of context with the rest of the situation. If behavior is out of sync with the situation this can easily be misinterpreted as a lack of understanding.

> seem so calm, composed, and stoic : This can easily be disengagement. So don’t put too much weight on this. Although that’s what corporate culture wants you to be: “uber rational”. Humor as you noted, can easily be construed as lack of control on emotions.

> "showing too much personality" : This can be a stumbling block based on the overall culture of the company and also your direct managers and what their attitudes are. Some won’t care, while for others this might make them insecure. “Deviant” often gets misinterpreted as “defiant”, or as asking for too much attention aka high-maintenance.

> working in/at/for an Organization is partially about "conforming" to the group and being able to fit-in : As much as organizations try to deny this, it’s very much a reality. At the end of the day companies are made up of humans and we are biased. There’s research since the mid 70s that even has a name for how people often get picked for promotions on how well they fit with the overall philosophy that goes unsaid but exists regardless - Implicit Leadership Theory. I riffed on this a bit(link below) that might useful.

https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-ef...