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.
