By Jeff Bell.
As a leader, we would like to surround ourselves with intelligent people. Those who are at least as intelligent as we are.
This may seem like plain common sense, but what does it truly mean?
Intelligence is not a simple concept, but many of us will try to define intelligence by referring to very narrow criteria.
Factual recall is one. Capacity to complete a course of education is another. For instance, we will stipulate that a key selection criterion is “Bachelor-qualified”.
We may dig deeper by insisting that candidates for a role we are offering complete an intelligence test which will spit out an Intelligence Quotient (100 is average).
These first formal intelligence tests were developed by Alfred Binet, who was commissioned by the French government in 1905 to identify students who would face the most difficulty in school.
His Binet-Simon Scale became the classic IQ testing model—later modified by Lewis Terman to develop the Stanford-Binet which has become the most widely-used version.
These claim to have nailed the definition of intelligence and they have received widespread acceptance for decades. They rely heavily on recalling facts, a big vocabulary, following abstract rules and forming patterns.
But are these adequate or reliable indicators?
William James highlighted the shortcomings of intelligence testing in the 19th century. It seems that the matter of intelligence is either too big to quantify or so simple it can be defined by a qualification or even a short test. We can’t have it either way.
So where does this leave us as leaders, seeking to match peoples’ capacities to the work we want them to do and/or to grow into? The first thing is to appreciate that there are many factors, besides an IQ, that determine someone’s intelligence:
- Is she interested in the challenge and have an incentive to solve the various items?
- Does he have the degree of conscientiousness to complete each item and the test overall?
- Do the questions actually asked fit within her cultural experience and sense of belonging?
- Does he have impulse control—able to put other matters aside to concentrate on the task?
- Is she at or near the peak of her physical health and fitness?
- Is he able to draw on similar learning experiences and adapt them to the issue before him?
- Is she accomplished at option-generation—able to provide multiple possibilities for any problem?
- Is he skeptical—able to reasonably doubt or interrogate any given solution or situation?
- Is she sufficiently curious to delve below the surface, ask “why?” and form new understandings?
- Does he have well-developed hand-eye co-ordination, fine motor control—able to master physical skills?
- Is she capable of remaining calm under stress, to separate emotion and reason, to make reasonable choices?
- Does he display a capacity to readily learn languages besides his own?
- Can she learn a wide range of melodies and lyrics and is able to recall them long after?
- Is he pragmatic—able to take a theory and turn it into viable action?
- Can she break down a skill or activity into steps, document them and create improvements?
- Can he read people’s emotions to enable effective and timely communication?
- Is she able to create a powerful message that will inspire people to extraordinary achievement?
- Is he capable of analysing the workings of a machine, sufficient to be able to repair it?
- Is she able to read a fast-moving chain of events and predict how it will pan out?
- Can he take a tool or machine and successfully apply it to an unintended purpose?
- Can she extrapolate from one situation to another to predict unknown outcomes?
The second thing is matching any number of the above with the role we are seeking to fill.
The third thing may be for us to have the intelligence to let people make their own way, intelligently. Everyone needs to feel confident in the support and understanding of their leader.
And for the shortcomings of intelligence? You may wish to read The Intelligence Trap, by David Robson—there may be other things at play.