Intelligence. So often it's treated as a fixed asset that an individual either has or doesn't have. Intelligence that is particularly high is considered by some to be a wonderful gift. If it is particularly low, some would have you believe it's a loathsome burden to be carried throughout life.
Quick quotes you might have heard
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein
"Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings." - Salvador Dali
"She is so smart, I know she'll get the next promotion." - Person in a break room near you
What is intelligence? Bryan's tangential look at Merriam-Webster's definition.
But what is intelligence? Let's dissect a common definition. Webster calls it "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations," or "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)." These words are quite elegant, but it becomes quite broad. The word learn generally means to gain understanding, and the word understand generally means to grasp the meaning of something. The second part of the first definition is connected by "or," which if I remember correctly from my Logic 101 class in undergrad (or the Boolean inputs I used to have to construct for data queries), means either could apply.
So intelligence is the ability to understand situations that are either new, or situations that are trying. At least according to the first definition. The second definition equates intelligence to the ability of an individual to manipulate an environment or think abstractly - in some measurable way. If I can throw something in my environment - say a baseball - farther than someone else (which is measurable), does this mean I am more intelligent? What if, between two people, one can throw the ball farther, and the other can better picture abstractly what the ball "sees" as it flies through the air? Which one is more intelligent?
The purpose is not to discount a particular definition of intelligence, and Merriam-Webster does a fine job with definitions. Instead it is simply to demonstrate that intelligence can be defined in many different ways.
The second definition includes something about measuring "objectively," or with some sort of test. Which bring us to how many (if not most) of us think about intelligence: IQ
IQ
IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is the outcome of a standardized test created to measure intelligence. Whomever the contributors are to Wikipedia have done a tremendous job on the article on IQ, and it's a must read if you have even a general interest in the topic.
These tests, usually administered either on paper (think bubble sheets and number 2 pencils) or by computer-based testing. The average score is 100. If you've taken one of these tests and your score was greater than 100, you have higher intelligence than the average bear. If your score was below 100, then you have lower intelligence than said bear.
There are multiple standardized intelligence tests, mostly named after those that developed them or contributed significantly to the theory. Some examples are the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Woodcock-Johnson. If you're exploring different standardized tests, be forewarned that there are several iterations of test linked to each of these names, geared towards different populations and for slightly different purposes.
But don't think that because you score a 100 that you'll be average forever. There is an interesting phenomenon, called the Flynn Effect, in which the average IQ of the population increases over time at a rate of a few points per decade. Some of these tests for intelligence are several decades old. Every so often the tests are checked to ensure that a score of 100 is still the average. Consistently, when these checks are done it's found that the average score of this new batch of test takers is higher than 100.
IQ as a predictive tool
IQ can be a useful predictive tool for a few different things.
Research from Jones and Schneider (2009) shows that "a country's average IQ score is a useful predictor of the wages that immigrants from that country earn in the United States, whether or not one adjusts for immigrant education."
Frey and Detterman (2004) show a strong correlation between SAT scores and general mental ability (GMA, more on that in a bit, but for now let's assume it's close enough to what standardized intelligence tests are measuring).
Francoys and Francois (2002) show that "cognitive abilities were by far the best predictor of school achievement, regardless of motivation."
In a 1997 survey article, Nathan Brody links IQ scores to the "acquisition of knowledge in school and occupational settings," as well as the "academic achievements of one's children."
Increase in IQ is also linked to an increase in national output.
Back to GMA (general mental ability), Schmidt and Hunter (2004) published "evidence that GMA predicts both occupational level attained and performance within one's chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job experience."
Seems pretty straightforward, that IQ drives earnings, achievement, productivity, and performance. Right?
There's a little more to it than that.
In 2000, Ardila, Pineda, and Roselli found support that traditional intelligence tests do not appropriately evaluate the executive functions of the brain. Executive functions include things like keeping track of time, doing multiple things at the same time, and changing one's mind in light of new information. In 2011, Kanchna Ramchandran writes that "executive function incrementally predicts complex decision-making and transformational leadership effectiveness, above and beyond general mental ability." The leading question is this: would one consider complex decision-making and transformational leadership effectiveness a component in productivity in particular roles?
Eliza Byington and Will Felps are highlighted in a 2011 CNN article, noting that "students who perform well in IQ reflective tests (e.g. GMAT, GRE, and SAT) have access to a greater range of developmental resources. The article also notes that research linking intelligence and performance tend to be from the developed Western world. In developing countries where there are fewer developmental resources, they "found these studies revealed a 'substantially weaker' relationship between IQ scores and performance. One Chinese study even showed a negative (albeit statistically insignificant) relationship.
A 2005 study by Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman finds that the academic marks of 164 eighth-graders were predicted more by self discipline than by IQ. This hints at intelligences beyond what might be measured by a standardized IQ test, generally considered a measure of g factor ("general factor," sort of the portable skills of the brain that can be used in different ways).
Even g factor itself is challenged from time to time, as well as its link to job performance. In 1992 Sternberg and Wagner published a survey article entitled "The g-ocentric View of Intelligence and Job Performance is Wrong." They draw a distinction between academic and practical knowledge, what we might call a distinction between "book smarts" and "street smarts." To this point they add that "as a result, tests of academic problem-solving ability result in lesser prediction of practical job-related performance than of academic or even job-learning performance. The closing flourish of the paper is this: "the geocentric approach to the universe is wrong, and so is the g-ocentric approach to abilities. We are not condemning conventional theories or tests of intelligence, but in the prediction of job performance, we do believe that they need to be supplemented by broader ability measures...."
But isn't IQ all there is?
There is a great deal of time and energy dedicated to the understanding of what makes individuals successful, productive, high performing, etc. From all of this research several different quotients have been developed. Some are founded in academic research, others are founded more in salesmanship. Here's a quick list, I'm sure more can be found:
- IQ: intelligence quotient, the one we're all most familiar with
- EQ: emotional quotient, also called EI
- MQ: motivation quotient, meaning quotient, moral quotient, or mensch quotient
- NQ: intuition quotient
- BQ: body quotient, or the ability to control and accomplish physical tasks with the body
The most well-known outside of IQ is EQ, emotional intelligence. The ideas around EQ aren't new, and have been bouncing around since the 1930s or so. In 1995 Daniel Goleman wrote a very popular book called Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ (forgive the link to the 10th anniversary edition, believe the original is out of print) that launched the concept of EQ into minds of business leaders everywhere. There are four specific components to EQ, outlined in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer, are self awareness, self management, social awareness, and relationship management. EQ has received a great deal of attention in the past couple of decades, although attempts to successfully measure EQ in a quantifiable way are still ongoing.
Here's an interesting twist on EQ: for a group of anesthesiology residents at University of Pittsburgh, there was "no positive correlation between any facet of emotional intelligence and resident performance. There was statistically significant negative correlation...between assertiveness and the 'American Board of Anesthesiology essential attributes' component of the resident evaluation." If you're an anesthesiologist, emotional intelligence might not be correlated with your job performance. Interesting.
There's a lot of fuzziness here. Don't the experts have this figured out yet?
In 1996 the American Psychological Association published the findings of a task force specifically developed to share the current state of understanding of intelligence. The article is aptly titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (more than the citation and abstract can be found here and here). Generally the paper concludes what you've just read here, albeit in greater depth. The conversation continues.
So what does this mean for me if I want to hire great talent?
Hire for competencies and capabilities, not for intelligence. Focus on an individual's body of work and demonstrated ability to perform and behave successfully in the particular role and environment into which you are hiring.
Most of all, remember that you are managing the most complex of inputs into your organization's output. People are magnificently complex, can succeed and adapt in surprising ways, and have self interest stronger than any customer or third-party vendor you've ever encountered. The science around intelligence is imperfect - and that's perfectly okay.
Best,
Bryan
Yes! Why are we putting everyone in boxes? You're in the intelligent box, and you're in the middling box, and you're in the stupid box. It doesn't mean people can't be successful just because they didn't pass a test. Yes!
ReplyDelete