Emotional and Other Intelligences

Common wisdom suggests that intelligence, what is more clearly termed academic or verbal intelligence, should predict both emergence into positions of leadership (smart people are selected as leaders or figure out how to become leaders) and leadership effectiveness (smart people are better at determining strategy and solving complex problems). Although there is a positive relationship between verbal intelligence (as measured by traditional intelligence tests that often produce an intelligence quotient, or IQ, score), this relationship is not as strong as one might expect. A meta-analysis by Timothy Judge, Amy Colbert, and Remus Ilies (2004) suggests that the correlation between verbal intelligence and leadership is between only .21 and .27 (corrected for range restriction)—lower than common wisdom might suggest. Earlier reviews have found similar, somewhat disappointing relationships between intelligence and leadership emergence and perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). There are some important reasons why the relationship between intelligence and leadership is not stronger. First, intelligence may be relative. Leta Stetter Hollingworth (1926) found that if a leader's intelligence was much greater than that of followers, the followers did not identify with and support a leader. The social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001) suggests that followers choose and support leaders who are more “prototypical” members of the group, clarifying the reason why followers might reject a leader with much greater intelligence than the typical group member has.