Do Smart People Make the Best Managers?
Everybody's talking about IQ testing and the importance of raw intelligence. A 1999 article in Scientific American said that only the top 5% of Americans (those above an IQ of 125) are even potentially capable of doing senior roles. The bottom 5% (those below an IQ of 75) are unlikely to be able to work and will form an underclass in society.
Companies have always recognized the importance of straightforward "academic smarts" both through specific graduate recruitment programs and more generally in the way they select and recruit people.
There is an opposing point of view, though. Some psychologists have criticized the whole idea of IQ. They either claim it doesn't actually exist or that it is simply a measure of how good you are at doing IQ tests! Others claim that it is biased against certain groups or that it doesn't predict work success (work "smarts" are not the same as "academic brilliance"). Some theorists have claimed it's too narrow a concept; that "intelligence" is in fact a bundle of different attributes from understanding language and manipulating numbers to being able to get on with people. Different jobs require different sets of skills.
In management terms, a lot of recent thinkers have questioned the whole idea of "manager as the best thinker in the team." The Emotional Intelligence movement and team theory suggest that not only does being intelligent not ensure someone will be a good manager; it might sometimes make them a bad manager. Belbin's team role theory shows that the person acting as chairman or leader of a group should not be the brightest one; if he or she is cleverer than the rest, he will swamp the group dynamics that create ideas more fertile than any individuals. Equally, management jobs are not all the same - in fact, they're extremely different and it's unlikely that one sort of person would, for instance, be equally good at running the technical side of a nuclear power plant as well as organizing a touring ballet company.
So which is it? Manager as smarty-pants or manager as a personally gifted leader figure.
Of course, there's some truth in both, as you and I working in the industry have always known. Folk psychology - how you and I judge people - is being shown to be very accurate about certain things.
The provisional answer to "Do Smart People Make the Best Managers?" is NO! We all know very clever people who are not just bad managers but are socially totally ineffective; people who seem almost lopsided.
Yet intelligence as defined in IQ is important. IQ is often defined as being able to deal with increasing complexity - and most managers do have to do that.
Intelligence seems to be a hurdle you have to jump over. You need a certain amount of intelligence to get into a management role. The more senior you get, the more different management jobs get and therefore the wider the variety of skills you'll need.
Think about Dulewicz and Higgs IQ/EI % contribution to management success.
Think about the different combinations of personal attributes you may need for different management jobs.
Think about particularly changes in fast-track graduate schemes. There is a collapse in confidence that degrees and other academic qualifications measure what they were measuring even 5 or 6 years ago: and the evidence is that this is, in fact, the case. Thus, many graduate recruiters are doing ancillary measures of high-level reasoning to check who are the real high fliers. But the real trick is not only to measure raw cognitive intelligence but those other attributes that may lead to success later on in careers.
Warm regards,
Sujeet Kumar
Strategist: HR, Training & Development
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
5Everybody's talking about IQ testing and the importance of raw intelligence. A 1999 article in Scientific American said that only the top 5% of Americans (those above an IQ of 125) are even potentially capable of doing senior roles. The bottom 5% (those below an IQ of 75) are unlikely to be able to work and will form an underclass in society.
Companies have always recognized the importance of straightforward "academic smarts" both through specific graduate recruitment programs and more generally in the way they select and recruit people.
There is an opposing point of view, though. Some psychologists have criticized the whole idea of IQ. They either claim it doesn't actually exist or that it is simply a measure of how good you are at doing IQ tests! Others claim that it is biased against certain groups or that it doesn't predict work success (work "smarts" are not the same as "academic brilliance"). Some theorists have claimed it's too narrow a concept; that "intelligence" is in fact a bundle of different attributes from understanding language and manipulating numbers to being able to get on with people. Different jobs require different sets of skills.
In management terms, a lot of recent thinkers have questioned the whole idea of "manager as the best thinker in the team." The Emotional Intelligence movement and team theory suggest that not only does being intelligent not ensure someone will be a good manager; it might sometimes make them a bad manager. Belbin's team role theory shows that the person acting as chairman or leader of a group should not be the brightest one; if he or she is cleverer than the rest, he will swamp the group dynamics that create ideas more fertile than any individuals. Equally, management jobs are not all the same - in fact, they're extremely different and it's unlikely that one sort of person would, for instance, be equally good at running the technical side of a nuclear power plant as well as organizing a touring ballet company.
So which is it? Manager as smarty-pants or manager as a personally gifted leader figure.
Of course, there's some truth in both, as you and I working in the industry have always known. Folk psychology - how you and I judge people - is being shown to be very accurate about certain things.
The provisional answer to "Do Smart People Make the Best Managers?" is NO! We all know very clever people who are not just bad managers but are socially totally ineffective; people who seem almost lopsided.
Yet intelligence as defined in IQ is important. IQ is often defined as being able to deal with increasing complexity - and most managers do have to do that.
Intelligence seems to be a hurdle you have to jump over. You need a certain amount of intelligence to get into a management role. The more senior you get, the more different management jobs get and therefore the wider the variety of skills you'll need.
Think about Dulewicz and Higgs IQ/EI % contribution to management success.
Think about the different combinations of personal attributes you may need for different management jobs.
Think about particularly changes in fast-track graduate schemes. There is a collapse in confidence that degrees and other academic qualifications measure what they were measuring even 5 or 6 years ago: and the evidence is that this is, in fact, the case. Thus, many graduate recruiters are doing ancillary measures of high-level reasoning to check who are the real high fliers. But the real trick is not only to measure raw cognitive intelligence but those other attributes that may lead to success later on in careers.
Warm regards,
Sujeet Kumar
Strategist: HR, Training & Development
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sujeet,
It was a good eye-opener on the subject of an effective manager.
Whether a good manager has high IQ or not, the investors/promoters seek results at the end of the day.
Here are some more useful thoughts on the same subject.
EFFECTIVE MANAGER
If IQ was the answer for an effective/competent manager, then Dr. Albert Einstein would have been a great manager and not a brilliant scientist.
IQ, as a subject, has been discussed/researched for a long time, without a conclusive/final result.
Based on a number of studies/research programs, the characteristics of an effective/competent manager were found to be:
1. KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCIES
- specific knowledge base.
2. EMOTIONAL MATURITY
- self-control
- spontaneity
- perceptual objectivity
- accurate self-perception
- physical energy
- adaptability
3. ENTREPRENEURIAL ABILITIES
- efficiency orientation
- goal setting
- planning
- productivity
- proactivity
- problem-solving ability
- information seeking
- decision-making
- concern for unique achievement.
4. INTELLECTUAL ABILITY
- perceive cause/effect
- deductive thinking
- inductive thinking
- conceptual ability
- political judgment
5. INTERPERSONAL ABILITIES
- social sensitivity
- self-presentation
- counseling skills
- expression impact
- compliance-producing skills
- alliance-building skills
- language skills
- respect for others
- effective team builder
6. LEADERSHIP SKILLS
- presence
- persuasive skills
- negotiation skills
- positive bias
- taking initiative
- communication (oral/written)
- presentation skills
- sales ability
A good/effective manager would have a combination of many of these characteristics.
Regards,
Leo Lingham
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It was a good eye-opener on the subject of an effective manager.
Whether a good manager has high IQ or not, the investors/promoters seek results at the end of the day.
Here are some more useful thoughts on the same subject.
EFFECTIVE MANAGER
If IQ was the answer for an effective/competent manager, then Dr. Albert Einstein would have been a great manager and not a brilliant scientist.
IQ, as a subject, has been discussed/researched for a long time, without a conclusive/final result.
Based on a number of studies/research programs, the characteristics of an effective/competent manager were found to be:
1. KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCIES
- specific knowledge base.
2. EMOTIONAL MATURITY
- self-control
- spontaneity
- perceptual objectivity
- accurate self-perception
- physical energy
- adaptability
3. ENTREPRENEURIAL ABILITIES
- efficiency orientation
- goal setting
- planning
- productivity
- proactivity
- problem-solving ability
- information seeking
- decision-making
- concern for unique achievement.
4. INTELLECTUAL ABILITY
- perceive cause/effect
- deductive thinking
- inductive thinking
- conceptual ability
- political judgment
5. INTERPERSONAL ABILITIES
- social sensitivity
- self-presentation
- counseling skills
- expression impact
- compliance-producing skills
- alliance-building skills
- language skills
- respect for others
- effective team builder
6. LEADERSHIP SKILLS
- presence
- persuasive skills
- negotiation skills
- positive bias
- taking initiative
- communication (oral/written)
- presentation skills
- sales ability
A good/effective manager would have a combination of many of these characteristics.
Regards,
Leo Lingham
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Dear Sujeet Kumar,
I want to know, what do HR executives exactly do in training? Do they give class presentations? I am currently working as an HR executive and would like to know how to become a Training and Development expert as I love public speaking. I enjoy keeping people motivated and feel great after public speaking. I truly enjoy that.
Please tell me about the courses available at institutes or anywhere. I would appreciate your help.
I will be waiting for your reply.
Please, guys, help me.
Rohini
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I want to know, what do HR executives exactly do in training? Do they give class presentations? I am currently working as an HR executive and would like to know how to become a Training and Development expert as I love public speaking. I enjoy keeping people motivated and feel great after public speaking. I truly enjoy that.
Please tell me about the courses available at institutes or anywhere. I would appreciate your help.
I will be waiting for your reply.
Please, guys, help me.
Rohini
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Competencies and managerial effectiveness.d oc
Mcgraw-Hill, eMBA Managerial Leadership, 2002.pdf