Discounting IQ’s Relevance to Organizational Behavior: The “Somebody Else’s Problem” in Management Education

Abstract

We hypothesize the existence of a "somebody else's problem" in management education for the subdiscipline of organizational behavior (OB). The problem regards human intelligence, specifically, the general factor, g. Although g is arguably the most powerful variable in social science, OB educators largely ignore it. To demonstrate the former, we review a vast literature establishing g's construct validity. To demonstrate the latter, we show that current OB textbooks place far less emphasis on g relative to a popular but less potent predictor of organizational success, emotional intelligence. We also show that when textbooks do reference g, it is often just to offer criticism. Misconceptions about empirical data on intelligence testing, denial that a general factor of intelligence exists, the reality of mean racial differences in mental ability, and the finding that genes play a non-trivial role in causing intelligence, seem to make OB's treatment of this topic "somebody else's problem."

Beliefs About Human Intelligence in a Sample of Teachers and Nonteachers

“…For example, when empirical results suggest differences in intelligence between different human populations, the views were more contested. This pattern in the data was similar to the egalitarian bias in previous research on the presentation of intelligence in textbooks and journalistic reports (Pesta et al, 2015; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988; Warne et al, 2018). However, the nongeneralizable sample and tentative, post hoc nature of this hypothesis means that at this time the possible existence of an egalitarian bias in our respondents’ beliefs is far from proven.…”

“…For example, the authors of one study found that over three-quarters of introductory psychology textbooks contained basic factual errors about intelligence, the most common of which was the claim that intelligence tests were biased against diverse examinees (Warne, Astle, & Hill, 2018). A similar survey of organizational behavior textbooks showed that intelligence was neglected (Pesta, McDaniel, Poznanski, & DeGroot, 2015), despite the fact that IQ is one of the best predictors of job performance, especially in complex jobs (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Snyderman and Rothman (1988) reported how journalistic reports of research and controversies related to intelligence often did not reflect expert consensus on the topic.…”

Beliefs about Human Intelligence in a Sample of Teachers and Non-Teachers

“…For example, when empirical results suggest differences in intelligence between different human populations, the views were more contested. This pattern in the data was similar to the egalitarian bias in previous research on the presentation of intelligence in textbooks and journalistic reports (Pesta et al, 2015;Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988Warne et al, 2018). However, the non-generalizable sample and tentative, post hoc nature of this hypothesis means that at this time the possible existence of an egalitarian bias in our respondents' beliefs is far from proven.…”

The Neglected Intelligence Course: Needs and Suggested Solutions

“…Teaching incorrect theories may lead future practitioners astray in their work. Business leaders, for example, may select employees for promotion or in hiring who excel in "emotional intelligence" instead of general intelligence, even though the latter is a better predictor of job success (Pesta, McDaniel, Poznanski, & DeGroot, 2015). Teachers who subscribe to multiple intelligences theory may engage in fruitless efforts to educate all of the "intelligences" in the theory or to seek ways to teach students that align with their supposed strengths.…”