Intelligence: Capacity for Learning and Growth
3.1 Overview of Cognitive Ability
‘Talents are distributed by nature without regard to geneologies.’
—Frederick the Great
‘I fear nothing so much as a man who is witty all day long.’
—Madame de Sévigné
Are all high potential people ‘super-bright’ wunderkinds? Or are they usually of average intelligence but with amazing motivation and the ability to spot opportunities? Can you use energy and drive to compensate for lower intelligence? Do high flyers use what ability they have differently than others? Are people with talent highly curious and try more than others to learn and grow? Is it that you just need to be ‘bright enough’ and, if so, what is ‘enough’? Does this vary from job to job? And what does smart, bright, intelligent actually mean?
It is the concept of innate ability that makes some people good at solving problems, understanding complex situations, and making use of new information more quickly than others that is so appealing to some and appalling to others. We call these people clever; quick-witted; smart.
Intelligence is a basic attribute linked to survival. The fundamental ability to perceive patterns, understand circumstances, and adapt behaviour to survive and thrive is not even limited to humans. Some people are just naturally quicker, sharper and more insightful than others. They seem to have better judgement; they learn faster; they have a wider knowledge base. We all lie on some continuum from very low to very high intelligence.
The question is to what degree does intelligence influence potential? Is it possible to be talented without being very (generally) bright? Can people become brighter: that is can you practice to become more intelligent? Is there evidence that gifted children turn into gifted adults? Can we find potential high flyers at school and university by giving them intelligence tests? Is there a linear relationship between intelligence and success at work: i.e. does one increase or decrease with the other? Is intelligence, alone, enough?
Some people are seen as acute, astute, bright, brilliant, caring, keen, quick witted and sharp. Others are perceived to be dim, dull, half-witted, slow or stupid. The former tend to be analytical and articulate: they learn fast, they remember things well and they can explain complex issues; the latter are the opposite. Smart people tend to outperform their less intelligent counterparts.
Intelligence is (quite simply) the best, most valid, predictor of job performance. As problems become greater, complex intelligence is a more important component of success. Despite negative portrayals of intelligence testing it is valid across many jobs, criteria, nations and cultures.
‘Intelligence is what an intelligence test measures and that is all.’ Many people and media sources are deeply sceptical about the use of intelligence tests. But who is correct? It was the famous Sir Francis Galton who remarked: ‘When you can, count’ who was the first clear advocate of intelligence tests. He believed that intelligence was a single general ability, that it was largely inherited and that it could best be measured in terms of the speed of problem solving and other related mental processes: he was correct.
In 1921 a distinguished American researcher asked 14 experts this question, ‘What is intelligence?’ Here are some of their answers:
• the ability to carry out abstract thinking;
• the ability to adjust to one’s environment;
• the ability to adapt to new situations in life;
• the capacity to acquire knowledge;
• the capacity to learn or to profit from experience;
• good responses from the point of view of psychological truth or fact.
Although experts still cannot agree on a precise definition of intelligence there is consensus about its importance. Themes common to many of their definitions are that intelligence is (a) the ability to learn from experience and (b) the ability to adapt to the environment. The current debate about intelligence is not whether or not it exists but about the precise nature of its inner workings.
The intelligent person is believed to solve problems well, reason clearly, think logically, and have a good store of information, but also is able to balance information and show intelligence in worldly as well as academic contexts. Lay theories of creativity overlap with those of intelligence but tend to downplay analytic abilities, stressing rather unconventional ways of thinking and acting. Also, aesthetic taste, imagination, inquisitiveness, and intuitiveness are part of lay theories, most of which go far beyond conventional psychological tests of creativity.
Intelligence is partly determined by nature, part by nurture. Genes can provide an advantage: some people just process information more quickly because their brains are more efficient at processing information, and use fewer resources to accomplish the same task. Intelligence is located in particular areas of the brain and works as a network of interactions in a ‘small-world’ network of connections within the brain. So intelligence involves efficient and uninterrupted connections. More efficient connections that use fewer of the brain’s resources (like glucose and oxygen) help to create more ‘intelligent’ brains (Deary, Penke, and Johnson, 2010).
But, biology is not destiny. Estimates suggest intelligence is somewhere between 30 per cent and 70 per cent genetic, and intelligence is not just about the structure of the brain, it’s about how you use it. There are different ways to solve any problem, and this is equally true of the brain. Different connections and ways of processing information can be used to solve the same problem. People may be born with natural advantages or disadvantages. However, the environment and lifetime experience affects intelligence. Environment, education, socioeconomic status, health and a range of other circumstances will affect how intelligence develops.
Intelligence has been shown to affect so many areas of life and achievement. Discussion of intelligence has found its way much more than many other psychological concepts into the realm of public discourse. It is ironic that one of the most well researched and well validated concepts in the psychology of performance is one of the most publicly contested. There are controversies about intelligence, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Over a century of testing, re-testing, and validation shows intelligence is both valid and useful. It influences almost all aspects of life and behaviour; it is valid across time, places, and cultures. Of any single measure taken at one point, it is the best predictor of success at a later point. It is also very consistent across the lifespan. A 45-minute test of intelligence at 11 years old predicts nearly two-thirds of the variation in intelligence at 79 years old (Deary, Penke, and Johnson, 2010).
‘Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or descriptive of test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings – “catching on”, “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.’
—(ottfredson, 1997b, p.13.
3.2 Facets of Intelligence
There is a remaining debate about types of intelligence. Cattell (1987) suggests that there is a difference between crystallised and fluid intelligence. The analogy refers to states of matter – fluid can take any shape, whereas solid crystals are rigid. Fluid intelligence is the ability to process and react to new information as it flows in to the stream of perception, to adapt quickly to new situations as they arise. It includes the ability to understand relationships, deal with unfamiliar problems, and gain new types of knowledge. Crystallised intelligence is already obtained; structured knowledge and skills that have been built up by experience. It is the ideas and knowledge that have solidified in one’s brain, the foundations and building blocks that you accrue through a lifetime of learning. It could be a way of doing things; it could be the lyrics of a song or poem that still rise to the mind unbidden; the proper way of doing things in a profession.
Fluid intelligence peaks before 20 and remains constant, with some decline in much later years. Crystallised intelligence, on the other hand, continues to increase as long as the person remains active. Thus, a schoolchild is usually quicker than a pensioner at solving a problem that is unfamiliar to both of them. Although this is one of the generalisations that work on average, it will not necessarily always work when comparing any two individuals. Crystallised intelligence is more related to experience, so it is cumulative. Years and decades of experience provide significant advantages when compared to the new student or trainee. Although what you have learned (crystallised intelligence) is influenced by how well you learn (fluid intelligence). This is why some people take much longer to ‘pick things up’.
Other factors, like personality, do play a part – introverts like to read, study, and learn, whilst equally bright extroverts like to socialise, have fun, and experiment (see Chapter 4). But people can learn from either books or people. Introverts who like learning on their own, often do better at tests of crystallised intelligence. Self-evidently, motivation is important; a highly motivated adult will learn more efficiently and effectively than an adult less interested in learning. Take the following examples of questions testing crystallised and fluid intelligence.
a) Memorise the following numbers, and repeat them in order from least to greatest:
600, 5, 8, 47, 1
b) Underline which adjective does not belong with the others:
Tall, tan, young, thin, lovely.
The former is a measure of fluid intelligence, the latter of crystallised intelligence. Question A is possible to complete without specific prior knowledge, but it does require ability to store, organise and retrieve information. It would be possible to test Question A in any language, or even with someone who could not read or write. Question B requires knowledge of a particular song (‘the Girl from Ipanema’ is tall and tan and young and lovely – no mention of her circumference). To show how a question like this could be even more culturally biased, consider which of these is the odd one out: Banker, Knight, Miller, Reeve, Cook. This question requires very specific knowledge of Middle English literature: knowledge which is particularly tied to socioeconomic status, and type of education. It is measuring knowledge in a very specific domain. Crystallised intelligence is something that one would (could) study for.
Furnham (2008a) notes that intelligence is ‘A basic building block for the differential psychologist. It is, quite simply, the most easily and reliably measured individual difference variable with the best reliability and validity.’ (p. 180)
The idea of innate ability along with the measurement and use of innate cognitive ability is controversial. It is not unusual for media sources to describe completely valid conclusions about intelligence as ‘discredited’.
There is a serious disconnect between the information in scientific journals and textbooks, and that in the realm of public discourse. The evidence from psychology and neuroscience clearly shows intelligence exists, it can be measured, and those measurements can be used to predict success in education, training and work (Gottfredson, 1997a). Because of the controversy, there is a perfectly understandable tendency for people who are responsible for hiring, assessing, or developing potential to err on what they feel to be the side of caution. Unfortunately this is an error.
It is also perfectly understandable that people who support employment equity, and who (mistakenly) believe testing intelligence is not equitable, avoid it for legal or ethical reasons. Unfortunately, the misconceptions about intelligence and its validity mean that it is avoided for the wrong reasons: controversy in the media or in public beliefs does not necessarily mean there is scientific controversy. Intelligence is one of the best examples of this, and because of the misconceptions it is particularly important to describe what we don’t mean when we talk about intelligence.
3.3 What Intelligence Is Not
Misconceptions quickly lead to mistakes. There are many misconceptions about intelligence, so it is necessary to review some. Fortunately they lead nicely into a discussion about why intelligence is so useful for the understanding of potential.
The first key point is, when we say intelligence, we don’t mean a particular skill or talent. Intelligence is not talent; intelligence is not something that you can learn like a musical instrument; it is not an ability that starts from no ability and is cultivated to a certain level. People are not born without intelligence; it’s not something that you pick up as you go along. People are born with a certain capacity to learn, and an innate speed of learning about problems, coming up with solutions and understanding what is going on around them. Intelligence is influenced by the environment and experience, but is also rooted in genetics and physiology.
Intelligence can also be used to predict performance, but it is a difficult concept to apply in the workplace. The main problem, and misconception, is about the difference between intelligence tests and the overall concept of intelligence tests. Specific tests or measures like the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test have been particularly victimised. There are limitations to IQ tests of overall intelligence, but that does not mean general cognitive ability as a psychological construct and measure of individual differences does not exist (a century of cumulative evidence suggests that it does).
‘Intelligence is best defined in terms of multiple domains configured within a hierarchical structure that accounts for different degrees of commonality among, and specificity between, those domains. IQ, on the other hand, has until fairly recently amounted to little more than an average outcome from an abridged range of those domains ’
—Nettlebeck and Wilson, 2005, p.613.
In other words, IQ is a quick and dirty method for estimating intelligence.
Individual characteristics aside, another widespread misconception is that intelligence is a measure of cultural value. Some people say that intelligence is a measure of what urban, capitalist, white, neoliberals (insert objectives ad infinitum, ad absurdum) value. It is possible to test cultural knowledge, but intelligence is not cultural. It is a fundamental attribute not limited to nations or cultures. Intelligence is not even limited to species; it is possible to test animals for intellectual properties. We can measure and compare intelligence in people, chimpanzees, dolphins, cuttlefish, rats, and many more.
Intelligence occurs because of the way the brain works, and the way certain structures of the brain are connected. It is easy to see the connection between intelligence and culture because an ‘intelligent’ brain tends to be good at adapting to physical and social environments. Intelligence helps people learn what is true, appropriate, and useful – consequently, intelligent people may adapt more quickly to any culture. It is absurd, based on both evidence and understanding of intelligence, to suggest that intelligence measures something that is tied to a certain culture.
Another popular myth is that there are multiple types of intelligence. No, there are not multiple types of intelligence that relate directly to abilities like musical talent or appreciation for nature. The confusion surrounding ‘multiple intelligences’ tends to be a problem of mislabelling. Other concepts like values are sometimes mislabelled as ‘types’ of intelligence. It muddies the water because it’s not always clear to those who are trying to apply multiple intelligences to potential that ‘other’ intelligences are not really intelligence as it was defined at the beginning of this chapter (reasoning, planning, mentally organising information – capacity to learn and adapt to surroundings). The idea that there are ‘multiple’ intelligences was popularised in Howard Gardner’s 1983 book Frames of Mind: Theories of Multiple Intelligences. The book outlined what he believed to be seven or eight or nine or ten separate and unique types of intelligence.
Gardner’s idea was that there are distinct types of intelligence and each operates independently. However, this theory has been largely unsupported by scientific evidence. ‘Naturalistic intelligence’ for example is supposed to be a preference for natural environments, and feeling connected with nature. This is clearly an attitude, or value, (see Chapter 5). It is a preference, not a fundamental method of processing, storing and managing information. These kinds of multiple intelligences are scientifically unsupported, and are not actually helpful. Intelligence, as an independent and clearly defined construct, is useful and good at predicting behaviour, performance, and achievement in education and at work.
Nettlebeck and Wilson (2005) dismiss Gardner’s theory: ‘A person doing well in one domain tends to do well in others’ (p.615). This is an underlying, foundational cognitive process: intelligence.
Figure 3.1: Examples of different models of intelligence
The concept of multiple intelligences is unhelpful because it makes it easier to confuse intelligence (cognitive ability) with learned abilities and preferences (naturalistic, existential). But, to assess potential, we need to clearly define potential – and subsequently we need clear-cut, valid concepts to measure factors that contribute to potential. It is easy to see why the idea of ‘multiple intelligences’ may be appealing, with as many as ten types of intelligence, most people will be above average in at least one area – everyone has a particular aspect they can personally feel proud of. Everyone is special! When put up to the lens of scientific scrutiny multiple intelligences are not actually valid or useful; they are counterproductive and misleading.
3.4 Giftedness in Children
There is an extensive literature on gifted children that highlights consistent results (Brody, 2005). This, therefore, is a good place to elaborate on talent. Research on gifted children shows the following attributes:
• Excel at memory activities beyond what one would expect at the given age level;
• Demonstrate unusually mature thinking on tasks that are complicated, learn very quickly new information or ways of doing things, or perceive hidden meanings;
• Show advanced understanding or precocious development of a specific skill area, e.g. early reading or mathematics without having been directly instructed or rapid development when provided the opportunity in arts;
• Show self-management of their own learning;
• Have a high need for a variety of experiences, seek new and different opportunities to investigate and seem to delight in novel problems to solve;
• Seek older children as playmates and engage in especially creative imaginative play scenarios;
• Have an advanced vocabulary and enjoy playing with words or other means symbolically represented in their world;
• Demonstrate notable variability between very sophisticated thinking and behaviour in other ways that indicates they are still young children.
There seem to be three or four distinct clusters of characteristics. The first is both general and specific ability. Gifted children are described as observant, inquisitive, and smart. They learn quickly, have a big vocabulary and enjoy intellectual challenges. They are also well co-ordinated, dextrous, athletic, and energetic (i.e. have advanced psychomotor skills). They can also show impressive visual, spatial, and auditory skills. Perhaps it is their advanced vocabulary, which most clearly marks them out as different.
Secondly, gifted children are known for their creative thinking. They are innovators, improvisers, independents and original thinkers. They enjoy coming up with several solutions to standard problems. They put extra effort into creative solutions, even when it is not necessary. They do not mind standing out from a crowd. Unlike adults, they are uninhibited about their creative products and express interest and confidence in the process.
Thirdly, highly gifted children appear to have higher levels of social intelligence. They are expressive, self-confident, popular and able. They show good social judgement and are able to foresee the consequences and implications of their judgements. They often assume responsibility in social settings, which is accepted by others. In this sense they get elected or appointed to positions of leadership by their peers and their teachers.
Finally, they tend to have higher levels of task commitment. They are able to concentrate easily and remain focused on tasks. Not all gifted children grow up to be talented adults but not all talented adults were gifted children. There is a strong connection between intelligence and performance at all ages.
3.5 Are We All Getting Brighter?
Are we all getting brighter? Are we a lot more intelligent than our parents and significantly more so than their parents? That may be what people believe but is it true?
It was an American political scientist working in New Zealand, James Flynn, who gave his name to the ‘Flynn Effect’. He noticed two things when he inspected famous and respected IQ tests manuals: First that every so often the norms which describe typical scores for different age, sex, and race groups had to change. Over time, intelligence test scores drift higher. The tests seemed to be getting easier or we were, as a species, getting brighter or both. Teasdale and Owen (2008) found intelligence test scores increased by a few points every decade since the mid-twentieth century, but gains in intelligence may have plateaued in developed countries.
There seems to be impressive evidence of intelligence increasing in developed nations. But the central question is why? Are we really becoming more intelligent? This of course led to the more fundamental question of whether these tests are really measuring intelligence or something else related to intelligence.
There are two possibilities, either test scores are changing or people really are getting smarter. There is much research to suggest the Flynn Effect does indicate a real rise in intelligence. Similar effects have been found across nations and generations. Height, similarly, has increased because of nutritional, medical and generational differences.
Box 3.1 The Flynn Effect is an Effect in Search of an Explanation.
The Flynn Effect suggests environmental rather than genetic causes of change in intelligence. Whilst it is perfectly conceivable to argue that brighter people seek out more simulating environments for themselves and their children which further increases their intelligence, it raises the old arguments about nature and nurture. Thus for the Flynn Effect to work environmental effects can work both ways. A rich environment combined with sustained early effort can increase intelligence. Equally, poor polluted environments and with people little interested in personal development can have detrimental effects on intelligence.
Other questions have arisen about whether the Flynn Effect has begun to taper off: that is whether there is now a decline in the increase seen. This means the next generation will not score higher than this generation. It is possible those abilities have plateaued, or that generational changes are artefacts (of chance) instead of consistent trends.
3.6 Values and Equity Concerns about Selecting for Intelligence
‘But why do you want to keep the embryo below par?’ asked an ingenious student.
‘Ass!’ said the Director, breaking a long silence. ‘Hasn’t it occurred to you that an Epsilon embryo must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity?’
It evidently hadn’t occurred to him. He was covered with confusion.
‘The lower the caste,’ said Mr. Foster, ‘the shorter the oxygen.’ The first organ affected was the brain. After that the skeleton. At seventy per cent of normal oxygen you got dwarfs. At less than seventy eyeless monsters.
George Orwell, A Brave New World
The strength of intelligence as a predictor of performance combined with the genetic and biological basis make some people see intelligence testing as a dystopian concept which could limit people’s agency, freedom of choice, and potentially be unfair. Many critics of intelligence and testing cognitive abilities may acknowledge the utility of testing cognitive ability, but dislike the results because of different values.
Kevin Murphy (2002) argues a focus on efficiency and reliance on cognitive ability can improve performance but can detract from employment equity. He says employers need to consider the degree to which performance and equity are important to the organisation, and strike a balance.
Kamilla Bahbahani, Equity Manager at the University of British Columbia (although critical of cognitive ability testing for selection), argues that performance and equity are inseparable, and it is not a trade-off. Equitable selection means selecting the person based on clear and valid criteria that determine performance. Equity is not about meeting quotas, or ignoring group differences – it is strong planning to reduce biases and accommodate differences in the workplace. It requires using criteria that have been demonstrated to accurately predict potential and to do a job well. It means selecting people only using criteria that are valid and basing those criteria on sound evidence. In other words, the right people in the right jobs, using the right criteria.
However, concerns about employment equity are linked, in many ways, with the concerns many people have about intelligence testing. Many people erroneously assume that intelligence tests are not valid – or that intelligence does not predict performance. If that were the case, if intelligence did not predict performance, then intelligence tests would not be equitable. But, intelligence tests are one of the best, most accurate measures of future performance.
There is much more variety between gender, national, or ethnic groups in intelligence than within these groups. In other words, if 20 people applied for a job, you would not be able to accurately guess their gender, ethnicity, country of birth or sexual orientation by those results – but you would have an excellent head start at estimating who would be the top performers. This is not to say intelligence is the sole indicator of potential at work, but it is a damn good one.
3.7 What Do We Need to Know to Understand Intelligence at Work?
Intelligence tests can be misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted. Intelligence tests are not a guaranteed test of potential, but are a good indicator. An intelligence test that takes only an hour or two can be much more effective than lengthy interviews or observations (Nettlebeck and Wilson, 2005). The bottom line is that intelligence tests measure a general ability that is related to success and performance. They are valid, but they are not perfect. Neither are home pregnancy tests 100 per cent accurate nor condoms 100 per cent effective, but that does not mean they should be discarded completely when they are the best tools available for a specific purpose. This is comparable to medical diagnostic tests both in validity and application. In medicine, the greater the significance of diagnoses, the more tests that are needed to be performed. Further tests lead to further information, and a further capacity to make informed decisions.
The more important the decision-making is for identifying potential and the greater the consequences of making an error, the more important it is to test and precisely measure potential. That doesn’t mean that a single test (such as IQ) should not be used, it means the greater the consequences of the decision, the more sensitive or rigorous the testing should be. A highly valuable, strategic position should consider a candidate’s intelligence, but it should not be the only consideration.
Intelligence is relatively stable across life and career spans. This does not mean intelligence cannot be changed, just that it is not as easy to influence as other, more variable factors, like motivation. Duration of education is correlated with adult intelligence. Income and organisational level are also associated with higher intelligence. Yet, it could just be that intelligent children stay in school longer, then go on to find better jobs and get promoted more quickly. Or it could be that the intelligent young person knows the social and cultural importance of education to the labour market (as well as the value of learning new skills and meeting other intelligent people).
Yet there is evidence that education has noticeable and measurable beneficial effects on intelligence. What education and training does is to provide the intelligent young person with relevant knowledge, inculcate specific modes of thought and self-discipline. Education is certainly desirable, but an employer would struggle to drastically alter the intelligence of some, or all, employees. Standard training practices can improve skills and competencies, but are not going to have drastic effects on intelligence. The only drastic changes in intelligence that occur at work tend to be the by-product of industrial accidents – like head injuries.
Nettlebeck and Wilson (2005) provide excellent suggestions for how intelligence testing should be used. First they argue tests can be used to clarify the existence of some ‘exceptionality’; the exceptionally best or exceptionally worst. Second they can pinpoint the source of certain difficulties. They do however warn that assessment should always involve assessing other traits and characteristics, intelligence alone should not necessarily be the sole basis for decision-making. They conclude: ‘Our support for these tests is contingent on two provisos. First, they must be consistent with current hierarchical, multifaceted theory that includes a general ability. Second, the child’s cultural background must be the same as that within which the tests were developed’ (p.626). This advice applies equally to testing adults at work.
3.8 Intelligence and Performance
Intelligence is intimately associated with reasoning, problem solving, adaptation, and learning; all the characteristics that are necessary to perform well at work. So can intelligence be used to predict performance (and potential) at work? Essentially, yes.
Scientific research has shown that, quite consistently, cognitive ability accurately predicts job performance across all jobs, particularly complex jobs. Intelligence is more important to work as a medical physicist than as a store clerk. However, intelligence is desirable for both, and would be likely to improve performance in both. Many believe that intelligence is the single best predictor of (senior and managerial) work performance; all recent research points to the predictive power of cognitive ability and hence the importance of using these tests in selection.
In the UK, Bertua, Anderson, and Salgado (2011) reviewed research from the UK investigating intelligence and performance. They combined the results of 283 separate studies and results from over 80,000 people. The results show tests of intelligence are very strong predictors of success both in training and in work. The relative importance of intelligence varied between professions; the two charts below show the relative validity (ranging from 0 to 1 with 1 being the greatest predictor) of intelligence for predicting success in different positions. It shows intelligence is a better predictor of success for more highly skilled professions, but also that intelligence is a strong component of success for most professions and training.
Figure 3.2 Success in Performance and Training in Different Occupations
It is also clear that intelligence is a greater contributor to success in some occupations than in others. Jobs that are more complex, more ambiguous or have more day-to-day variation can require greater intelligence for high performance. Intelligence also tends to be of greater importance to success in training than in work.
Ones, Viswesvaran and Dilchert (2006) provide an excellent comprehensive and relevant review of the current conclusions on intelligence.
• Based on data of well over a million students they note intelligence is a strong, valid predictor of exam success, learning and outcome at school and university regardless of the speciality or subject considered;
• Training success at work, as measured by supervisor ratings or job knowledge acquired, is predicted by intelligence and the more complex the job, the more powerfully it predicts performance;
• Intelligence tests predict performance outcomes across jobs, situations and outcomes – i.e. validity is transportable across occupational groups and is cross-culturally generalisable;
• Tests of specific types of intelligence tend not to be any more useful than tests of general intelligence;
• Intelligence predicts job performance well because it is linked to the speed and quality of learning, adaptability and problem solving ability;
• Intelligence tests are predictively fair to minority groups, but can have an adverse impact that is a sensitive political issue;
• In short, intelligence is one of the best, if not the best predictor of success in applied settings.
Figure 3.3 The Importance of Intelligence to Performance and Training Performance
Their conclusion is that, internationally, intelligence measures are among the best predictors of work performance. Despite differences in tests used, measures and conceptualisations of job performance and training, differences in unemployment rates, cultural values, and demographics, still intelligence wins out as the best individual difference psychometric measure. Indeed the results are strikingly similar to earlier data coming out of America (Hunter, 1986; Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Viswesvaran et al., 1996; Kuncel et al., 2001). They conclude that because of the predictive validity of intelligence at work across cultures one can easily conceive of a scientifically feasible general theory of personnel selection. They also point out: ‘. . . tests of specific abilities such as verbal, numerical, spatial-mechanical, perceptual, and memory failed to demonstrate higher validity than intelligence measures. It is thus prudent to reiterate the main practical implications of this finding that intelligence tests predicted these two criteria most successfully’ (p.594).
Gottfredson (2002) believes it is vitally important for personnel psychologists and managers to understand the role of intelligence at work. In a wonderfully clear and important synthesis, she outlines the real importance of g (or general intelligence) at work (Gottfredson, 2002; p.44–46). This is well-worth repeating in full:
Major Findings on g’s Impact on Job Performance a Utility of g:
1. Higher levels of g lead to higher levels of performance in all jobs and along all dimensions of performance. The average correlation of mental tests with overall rated job performance is around .5 (corrected for statistical artefacts);
2. There is no ability threshold above which more g does not enhance performance. The effects of g are linear: successive increments in g lead to successive increments of job performance;
3. a) The value of higher levels of g does not fade with longer experience on the job. Criterion validities remain high even among highly experienced workers. b) That they sometimes even appear to rise with experience may be due to the confounding effect of the least experienced groups tending to be more variable in relative level of experience, which obscures the advantages of higher g;
4. g predicts job performance better in more complex jobs. Its (corrected) criterion validities range from about .2 in the simplest jobs to .8 in the most complex;
5. g predicts the core technical dimensions of performance better than it does the non-core ‘citizenship’ dimension of performance;
6. Perhaps as a consequence, g predicts objectively measured performance (either job knowledge or job sample performance) better than it does subjectively measured performance (such as supervisor ratings).
Utility of g Relative to Other ‘Can Do’ Components of Performance
7. Specific mental abilities (such as spatial, mechanical or verbal ability) add very little, beyond g, to the prediction of job performance. g generally accounts for at least 85–95 per cent of a full mental test battery’s (cross-validated) ability to predict performance in training or on the job;
8. Specific mental abilities (such as clerical ability) sometimes add usefully to prediction, net of g, but only in certain classes of jobs. They do not have general utility;
9. General psychomotor ability is often useful, but primarily in less complex work. Its predictive validities fall with complexity while those for g rise.
Utility of g Relative to the ‘Will Do’ Component of Job Performance
10. g predicts core performance much better than do ‘non-cognitive’ (less g-loaded) traits, such as vocational interests and different personality traits. The latter add virtually nothing to the prediction of core performance, net of g;
11. g predicts most dimensions of non-core performance (such as personal discipline and soldier bearing) much less well than do ‘non-cognitive’ traits of personality and temperament. When a performance dimension reflects both core and non-core performance (effort and leadership), g predicts to about the same modest degree as do non-cognitive (less g-loaded) traits;
12. Different non-cognitive traits appear to usefully supplement g in different jobs, just as specific abilities sometimes add to the prediction of performance in certain classes of jobs. Only one such non-cognitive trait appears to be as generalisable as g: the personality trait of conscientiousness/integrity. Its effect sizes for core performance are substantially smaller than g’s, however.
Utility of g Relative to the Job Knowledge
13. g affects job performance primarily indirectly through its effect on job-specific knowledge;
14. g’s direct effects on job performance increase when jobs are less routinised, training is less complete, and workers retain more discretion;
15. Job-specific knowledge generally predicts job performance as well as does g among experienced workers. However, job knowledge is not generalisable (net of its g component), even among experienced workers. The value of job knowledge is highly job specific: g’s value is unrestricted.
Utility of g Relative to the ‘Have Done’ (Experience) Component of Job Performance:
16. Like job knowledge, the effect sizes of job-specific experience are sometimes high, but they are not generalisable;
17. In fact, experience predicts performance less well as all workers become more experienced. In contrast, higher levels of g remain an asset regardless of length of experience;
18. Experience predicts job performance less well as job complexity rises, which is opposite the trend for g. Like general psychomotor ability, experience matters least where g matters most to individuals and their organisations.
3.9 Intelligence and the High Flyer
There is neither agreement on the definition of high flyers nor what makes someone ‘talented’; there is relatively little data to go on. However, nearly all of the companies and researchers in this area include as part of their definition something that hints very clearly at intelligence. Some talk of analytic strengths, successful intelligence, cognitive ability, smarts, or capacity to learn from experience. These are all typical terms for intelligence, and may be a ‘politically correct’ way of skirting the controversies in intelligence testing.
Intelligent people learn faster. They quickly notice patterns and analyse issues well. They tend to be more curious and have a broader base of knowledge. They make fewer errors and remember things better. It is hardly surprising then, that intelligence is seen as a fundamental component of talent. But intelligence is not enough.
Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. It is difficult to conceive of a high flyer that is not bright. But, how bright? When is being bright enough? Do they have to be smart enough to get into MENSA? To some extent this depends on the sector where the high flyer works. Some sectors require more intelligence than others.
We have all known the super bright classmate at school and university who turned out to have a very average career. Were they just unlucky, unable to exploit their high intelligence, or simply not motivated to do very well?
What data is available suggests the following. High flyers usually score between one and two standard deviations above the norm on IQ tests. It is an attribute to be in the top 30 per cent, but there are not great advantages to being in the top 5 per cent or 1 per cent. A modest advantage is helpful, but top performers do not need to be geniuses, and genius alone is not sufficient for top performance. Their academic careers are not necessarily marked by great achievement. Some did very poorly because they were not motivated by school work but by something in later life or work that sparked their passion, motivation, and channelled their intelligence, and they had the right personality traits to bring their vision to fruition.
High flyers are driven; highly motivated; ambitious and competitive. And usually they are above average, but not necessarily the most intelligent. Studies that track thousands of children across generations show exceptional intelligence is not necessary to succeed; above average intelligence is usually ‘enough’ (Shurkin, 1992).
3.10 Conclusion
In some areas of endeavour it would be impossible to conceive of a high flyer as someone who is not very clever indeed. The noble scientist, the imaginative engineer, the brilliant doctor. Brighter people learn more and learn faster. They see patterns, trends and mechanisms before others. Yet, as we have pointed out, the High Flyer needs to be ‘bright enough’ to succeed and to realise their potential.
Figure 3.4 Dimensions of Potential (Revised)