Article: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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.

People may dislike them but the current crop of decisive idiots are not what humanity needs.

We need a 'like' button.

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?

I think historically we thought leaders were "better" than us and maybe didn't question as much.

Originally Posted by indigo

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

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)

Related, from Merriam-Webster's Word Of The Day:

Originally Posted by biblioklept

Definition: one who steals books

Biblioklept is, in at least some sense of the word, fairly useless. It is two syllables longer than book thief. It is also unlikely to be understood by some portion of the people with whom you use it, and so cannot be said to aid in communication. Happily, we do not have a merit based vocabulary, and words that are useless have the same rights of inclusion as do those that are useful.