Most of us have completed an IQ test at some point. Better still, psychometric tests assess your cognitive ability and/or your personality. Selection and promotion decisions may be based on the results. What we know today as an IQ test started out early in the 20th century and was intended to rout out ‘undesirable traits’. Whilst the original intent may be considered unethical, the testing of cognitive ability persists to this day. Most commonly, it is used in the screening of people for jobs to try and predict fit and success. Those with above average intelligence who ‘successfully’ answer behavioural, personality and scenario questions get the role. But, what if we told you that a high IQ may be holding back your organisation? What if too many ‘stars’ reduces the effectiveness of a team? Read on as we delve into collective intelligence and improving your team effectiveness.
General intelligence v collective intelligence
General intelligence consists of an array of cognitive abilities that include our deduction, induction, relationships, spotting rules, differences and similarities. A high general intelligence or g factor indicates a higher mental capacity for learning and problem solving. The original belief behind the measurement of cognitive ability was that we could spot the brightest humans with the highest potential. Parents in the Western Hemisphere are particularly keen to advance their children’s achievement based on measures such as IQ. A high IQ still implies that a child is ‘gifted’ and destined for great things, despite the fact that the top positions in society are not necessarily occupied by such people.
In contrast, collective intelligence is a shared intelligence borne of the collective effort and collaboration of a group of individuals. On a simple level, it is an elevated mental capacity from a group working together, often displayed via consensus in decision-making. You might imagine at this point that filling such a team with those of a very high general intelligence will result in an extraordinarily high collective intelligence. Similarly, filling a sports team with the brightest and best talent should result in domination, if only you can afford and attract all of them. Let’s look at the facts.
Collective intelligence examples
Let’s start with a few examples of low collective intelligence. How did the boards of Enron, Carillion and RBS not see their respective disasters unfolding? How did Blockbuster, Woolworths and Yahoo not see the digital trends unfolding before them? If you imagine that some of these boards were packed with high IQs, the failures are all the more shocking.
Recent psychology research has uncovered two curious traits of those with a high general intelligence. Firstly, they appear to have larger bias blind spots than those with average intelligence. This is because they may be more susceptible to confirmation bias, seeking information that supports their own perspective, thus more deeply cementing their beliefs (whether they are right or wrong). Secondly, a group consisting of average to low general intelligence was measured to be 4 times the collective intelligence of one consisting of all high general intelligence individuals.
In short, the high general intelligence group were less able to act as a collective and that led to paralysis in decision-making. Similar behaviour was observed in a group where one person dominated, with the overall group scoring poorly for collective intelligence. The psychologists also observed that those with high general intelligence found it hard to be part of a team, possibly due to the need to maintain their apparent superiority (ego), leading to greater conflict and emotional outbursts. It seems that sometimes, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
Improving your team effectiveness
Here is an example observed by Think Beyond. The exercise involved negotiating the features of a theoretical car to go on sale. 8-10 individuals were given responsibility for a real-life department and a budget. The budget of the finished vehicle was just over half of the total of the budget of each department added together. The stated objective was to decide on the best configuration of vehicle with the available budget, requiring some departments to give up elements of their budget. For example, the department responsible for electronics had a high-end audio system and satellite navigation. Adding both would mean sacrificing other features. 40 minutes into the hour-long exercise, the deadline was reduced by 10 minutes and the budget reduced by 20%. This upped the ante and the pressure on the group to find a solution, which would be presented to the assessors.
Unbeknown to the participants, the real objective was to find someone who would take charge, bending the group to their will and taking the limelight. In effect, the exercise aimed to find a ‘winner’ of the challenge. Unfortunately, it was also designed to achieve the lowest collective intelligence. In the context of the organisational culture, this made a lot of sense. The belief was that a few ‘stars’ would rise to the top by out-competing everyone else. A survival-of-the fittest mentality, if you will. Whether the final vehicle was good or not was immaterial. The only rules were to not exceed the budget and finish on time. Given that collective intelligence is often displayed through consensus, the exercise was the antithesis of this. The winner-takes-all approach won out and nobody knew if the vehicle would actually sell, given the hypothetical scenario.
Winning is a Western thing
From a young age, Western culture encourages us to win. Whether this is the fastest to raise their hand in the classroom to victory at sports or who gains extra credit from the boss. We know that we have a capitalist economic system and that our education system is focused solely on results. Unfortunately, it seems that the way we get to those results is of less importance. Few of us are taught how to think, display humility or learn effectively.
Returning to the example above, the people involved failed to understand the power of collective intelligence. That ‘winning’ mentality would have limited the perspectives, ideas, wellbeing and consensus of the group. On a final note, imagine for a moment the future dynamic if 9 people lose and 1 person wins the assessment. The losers would be defensive, fearful for their jobs, less willing to speak up and resentful of the winner. Would this be an organisation that you want to work for?
Thinking of effective teams
Think Beyond is a management consultancy that acts to support management and senior leaders to achieve targets. We are an enabler of business performance and a supporter of management best practice. We offer a range of workshops and skills training options to support successful teams. In summary, we believe in creating a healthy corporate culture that supports innovation, learning and collaboration.
If you would like to discuss your needs, simply pop in a few details online or email us to set up your free initial introduction.
Finally, why not check out a related article on the need to develop manager skills.