Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 167 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 1 of 2 1 2
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders
    by Matthew Hutson
    Scientific American
    January 18, 2018

    Originally Posted by article
    Those with an IQ above 120 are perceived as less effective, regardless of actual performance
    ... based on research results published in the July 2017 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology.

    Originally Posted by article
    “The wrong interpretation would be, ‘Don’t hire high-IQ leaders.’ ”
    Unfortunately, while the article substantiates that high-IQ individuals may suffer from negative bias against them, it does not explore "why" this occurs. Possibly ongoing future research would reveal this:
    Originally Posted by abstract
    As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace.

    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Agreed, the article misleadingly suggests a "why" that it never provides, it merely determines that the prejudice exists.

    So... let's speculate on why.

    My observation over the last several national elections is this: people often look for quick decisiveness as a proxy for this quality called leadership. They're less likely to spot the fraud as the IQ of the leader increases, because the decisions made by lower-IQ leaders are more obviously flawed and ordinary people can notice.

    As IQ increases beyond 120, the presentation of quick decisiveness begins to decrease, as the higher-IQ leaders realize that there are more factors/consequences involved in their decisions. So they seek out more information, more voices, and appear to be dissembling and ineffective. They make better decisions, and are punished for it.

    Joined: Mar 2017
    Posts: 97
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Mar 2017
    Posts: 97
    From personal experience (I own 2 small businesses and I'm the president of the board of directors of another), I've always thought it boiled down to the ability/inability of subordinates to understand the big picture of the leader's vision.

    I vaguely recall Hollingsworth said that a leadership pattern will not form when 2 people are too far apart in intelligence (she said 2 sd's, I believe). Which makes sense - an important part of leadership is getting subordinates to believe in your vision. And that turns on the ability to communicate that vision in a way that they understand. And if a leader is presenting an abstract concept beyond the subordinates' ability to grasp and doing it with vocabulary that the sub's don't know then the chance for full buy in drops significantly.

    If you've ever spoken with a subject matter expert when they're using full technical jargon, you know the disconnect. They're probably 100% correct but the gap in knowledge makes it hard for the listener to connect with what's being presented on a deep level.

    My bet would be that if they studied communication styles within the group of leaders above IQ 130, there would be a correlation between better scores and leaders who used simpler language when communicating with their subordinates.

    Last edited by philly103; 01/27/18 12:03 PM.
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    indigo Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by philly103
    My bet would be that if they studied communication styles within the group of leaders above IQ 130, there would be a correlation between better scores and leaders who used simpler language when communicating with their subordinates.
    Agreed.

    Related article here:
    Science Says This Is the Optimal IQ to Be Considered a Good Leader...
    subtitle: Research shows leaders perceived as the most successful today are only slightly smarter than those they lead
    by J.T. O'Donnell for Inc.
    Originally Posted by article
    Given the average IQ of any group fluctuates between 100 to 110, the study indicates the optimum level of a successful leader's intelligence is no more than 1.2 standard deviations above the group mean (i.e., an I.Q. of around 120-125). In other words, a leader seen as too intelligent or competent actually struggles more at convincing people of his or her leadership ability.
    Originally Posted by article
    Talking Over People's Heads = Leadership Failure

    According to Simonton and other researchers working in the field:
    ...overly intelligent leaders tend to put off potential followers by
    (a) presenting "more sophisticated solutions to problems [which] may be much more difficult to understand"
    (b) using "complex forms of verbal communication [and] expressive sophistication [that] may also undermine influence"
    (c) coming across as too "cerebral" making them more likely to be seen as an "outsider" and not "one of us."

    Related post here:
    How are the parents doing? (Jan 2018)

    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    A
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    A
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by philly103
    .

    If you've ever spoken with a subject matter expert when they're using full technical jargon, you know the disconnect. They're probably 100% correct but the gap in knowledge makes it hard for the listener to connect with what's being presented on a deep level.

    My bet would be that if they studied communication styles within the group of leaders above IQ 130, there would be a correlation between better scores and leaders who used simpler language when communicating with their subordinates.

    No doubt they need to take a course in communication, but the really smart folks I know know when to "code switch". In other words, drop the jargon and make things undestandable to outsiders.

    I too own and run a business (closely held and too much family). We're about to close down after 103 years for either lack of communication or sibling rivalry. I can't decide which. Or, perhaps just my own incompetence. Certainly, I question everything I say or do these days. Paralysis through analysis.

    Thanks for the comments

    Last edited by Alannc44; 11/02/18 05:34 AM.
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    I manage bright people and the expectations of not so bright people so I need to 'flex' constantly in my communication style. I used to think that everyone was rational and presenting the facts would make the correct path obvious (where's the rotfl emoji when you need it?). I have since been 'woke' and realize that I had been pitifully delusional.


    Become what you are
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    People may dislike them but the current crop of decisive idiots are not what humanity needs.

    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    A
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    A
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    We need a 'like' button.

    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 132
    L
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    L
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 132
    I'd like to know if it's a modern thing. Did we ever, historically, like leaders that we thought were smarter than us? (I hope so, because maybe we can get back to that point) Or did we never like them but just never had much of a choice because we accepted that the system nominated/promoted smart folks?

    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    I think historically we thought leaders were "better" than us and maybe didn't question as much.

    Page 1 of 2 1 2

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5