Intelligence as a predictor of employee motivation and work achievement

Organizational behavior has emerged as a prominent field of study because of the desire of managers and leaders to better understand the intrinsic and extrinsic variables that shape the development and success of operations. While investigations into organizational behavior have demonstrated that there are a wide range of variables which can impact outcomes for the organization, in recent years, attention has been focused on the specific variables which create motivation and productivity for the individual employee. The idea behind this vein of inquiry is that by delineating motivational factors for each individual in the organization will lead to the development of a collective culture in which the needs of employees are satisfied, allowing all members of the organization to contribute productively to operations.

In an effort to better understand the individual variables that can impact outcomes for the organization, researchers have considered the issue of intelligence as a dominant paradigm in predicting the outcomes of employee motivation and behavior. Although some scholars believe that the intelligence of the employee will have a direct bearing on productivity and behavior, others argue that intelligence must be nurtured and developed in the context of the organization in order to provide clear benefits for operations. With the realization that so much controversy has resulted as a consequence of investigating intelligence in the context of organizational behavior, there is a direct impetus to examine this issue and its impact on the organization. Using this as a basis for investigation, this research considers a discussion of the following statement: An individual's work achievement can be best predicted by measuring their intelligence. Through a careful review of what has been noted about the importance of intelligence in the organization and its impact on employee behavior, it will be possible to elucidate the specific issues involved in maximizing intelligence for organizational benefit.

Literature Review

Intelligence: Definition and Scope

In order to begin this investigation, it is first helpful to consider a brief overview of the definition and scope of intelligence. A cursory overview of the current literature on this subject demonstrates that while numerous efforts have been made to define and conceptualize intelligence, considerable variation on what should be included in the definition of this term remains. To illustrate this point, Sternberg (2006) notes how the evolution of intelligence in the twentieth. According to this author, in 1921, a group of psychologists was asked to provide their review of how intelligence should be defined. Although variations on the definition were provided by each psychologist, there was considerable consensus on some particular issues with regard to intelligence. Specifically, Sternberg reports that, "First, intelligence involves the capacity to learn from experience. Second, it involves the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment" (p. 485-6).

Sternberg (2006) goes on to report that 65 years later in 1986, a group of psychologists was again asked to define intelligence. Sternberg reports that in their definition the same two issues of intelligence identified in 1921 were noted along with additional features, which professionals argued provided a more integral understanding of intelligence. In particular, Sternberg observes that "They, too, underscored the importance of learning from experience and adapting to the environment. They also broadened the definition to emphasize the importance of metacognition -- people's understand and control of their own thinking processes" (p. 486). Sternberg further reports that modern psychologists also emphasized the role of culture in the development and display of intelligence. In short, cultural contexts would require different adaptations for the individual. The ability to make these adaptations then was clearly an indication of intelligence.

Not surprisingly, the various definitions of intelligence that have been posited in the literature have given rise to questions about how intelligence should be applied in the context of assessment or evaluation. Sternberg (2006) notes the challenges that have developed in the context of understanding intelligence in an organizational context. As reported by this author, the manifestation of intelligence can be difficult to predict and understand. In an effort to demonstrate this point, Sternberg provides an example of the competent salesperson that is able to excel at his job. Although the salesperson may not have a high level of cognitive intelligence, according to Sternberg, this individual has a high degree of implicit intelligence. In short, the salesperson is able to examine a situation, make quick and accurate judgments and adjust in order to effectively make a sale. This type of intelligence can be difficult to assess utilizing standardized tests of intelligence.

Discussion/Conclusion

At the outset of this investigation, a basic statement for evaluation was proposed: "An individual's work achievement can be best predicted by measuring their intelligence." Synthesizing all of the data provided in this investigation, it is now possible to evaluate this statement and its implication for the development of the organization. Overall, the data presented here suggests that ongoing efforts to define and understand intelligence have prompted a more integral expansion of the definition and conceptualization of intelligence. Even though intelligence was once thought to be a measure of the individual's cognitive abilities only, broadening this definition clearly demonstrates that there are other issues that must be considered in the context of intelligence assessment and evaluation.

Placing this in the context of the organization and the ability to predict individual behavior, it seems reasonable to argue that efforts to assess intelligence often do not look beyond the quantitative measures that have been developed in the context of standardized intelligence tests. For this reason, the utilization of these tests as a dominant predictor of individual behavior does not appear to be a valid practice. Rather, intelligence assessment or evaluation may provide a rudimentary understanding of the individual's potential and the possibility for a high level of productivity if the individual is placed in the right organizational environment. Thus, intelligence is not the sole measure which will provide a clear and accurate understanding of how the individual will perform once hired.

Integral to this discussion of intelligence and the individual's behavior is the moderating context of the organizational culture in which the individual employee will function. Research provided in this investigation clearly demonstrates that the culture of the organization will play a mitigating or confounding role in the development of behavior. Thus, while the collective intelligence of the organization and its culture may influence the development of positive behavior of the intelligent employee, without this culture in place, intelligence assessments, in and of themselves, will not provide a definitive answer with respect to individual performance and outcomes for the organization.

In the end it is clear that an individual's work achievement cannot be best predicted by intelligence level. Although there is evidence which suggests that intelligence is a highly desirable trait which can impact the performance of both the individual and the organization, the reality is that intelligence alone cannot predict achievement. For this reason, organizations should consider the use of intelligence assessments as part of a larger battery of evaluations to determine the individual's fit within operations.

Reference List

Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P., 2006. Principles of organizational behavior. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sternberg, R., 2006. Cognitive Psychology. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Youndt, M. & Snell, S.A., 2004. Human resource configurations, intellectual capital and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(3), pp. 337-360.