SQ Versus IQ: Successful Intelligence Measuring and Teaching What Matters (To be published in The International Journal of Business Disciplines: W. Terry Dancer, Editor email [email protected] per March 10, 2005 letter)

Robert W. Service Samford University Abstract For those of us who have spent careers following successes and failures in the arena of organizational commerce, it comes as no surprise that a high IQ does not always correlate with success in many of life’s endeavors. Yet our measures for entry in any field requiring advanced degrees are based in a large part on the IQ test. Indeed, all these standard admission tests for advanced degrees in America are highly correlated to standard IQ tests. Does it seem appropriate that most university teaching methods and admissions testing for post bachelor’s degrees should favor those who can remember and pass a multiple-choice test over those who are good at the tasks required by a given profession? It seems that academicians and those outside of academia, when training and developing the leaders of our organizations, need to be more concerned with successful intelligence than with traditional IQ. By the admission of their users and creators, even the most respected of IQ tests fail to measure many critical aspects of true intelligence that are required for success in today’s increasingly complex world of organizations. This paper purports that action learning and evaluation can be advanced through adopting new views of IQ. The new type of intelligence being espoused here is called Success Quotient (SQ) versus Intelligence Quotient (IQ). SQ, as developed here, relates to success in life and is a very malleable characteristic. IQ, as measured in the past, is one of the least changeable of factors. University professors and professional trainers must begin to measure and teach toward something that is more learnable and teachable. One who wants to improve success in their own life and the lives of others needs to forget the IQ of old and use the new SQ descriptives in this article. I.

Introduction and Research Question

The extant literature of late has been replete with theories espousing IQ, EQ, AQ, or a combination of those as predictors of success. While the historical importance of IQ should not be discarded, a more important concept needs to be developed and taught in educational systems. Academicians and corporate trainers need to be more concerned with SQ than IQ. As Sternberg (1996) said, the most respected of IQ tests most often fail to measure their creators’ conceptions of human intelligence. It seems that few who have studied IQ would say that it measures human intelligence and all of its complexities. In this paper, a case will be developed for changing teaching to direct educational facilitators toward SQ and have admissions officers rethink their archaic admissions tests where ease is taken over reality. In these times of many universal and difficult problems, we can ill afford to continue excluding people who could add to our need for doctors, business leaders, scientists, and all who could contribute tremendously to improving the world in which we live. Teaching, practicing, and measuring management is at a crossroads. So much of our testing relates to the IQ measures of old. A new direction is needed in higher management education and related university admissions. In Henry Mintzberg’s book, Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development (2004), Mintzberg shows how management is handling ambiguity for self and others and is improvable only by experience coupled with sound theoretical underpinnings. Mintzberg says that we need managers with practical human relations skills and academic credentials. The practical human skills simply cannot

be tested for by the traditional IQ tests or their proxies. The lab of management advancement is out in the world of organizations, and academia needs to catch up. Likewise, nonacademic world-class leaders could often use a dose of theory. Daily occurrences point to disconnects between academia and practice in the arena of management. I hear PhDs berating experience; only those with advanced educations have truly open innovative minds! I hear experienced business leaders saying those that can’t do, teach! Well, both are wrong and right! World class negotiators realize that winning an argument is normally possible only when one knows more about the other person’s side than the other person does. Academic business discipline knowledge and knowledge from management experience must be integrated. The research question becomes what are new and better directions for teaching, testing, and learning within the business disciplines that can better integrate academic theory and practical application in order to improve learners’ potential for success? The pronouncements about SQ over IQ, testing, and teaching presented in this article will help us integrate more application of practice versus theory. Relate reality and supposition, and the testable and meaningful, to more fully realize the potential being missed in many who could and would, given the opportunity and proper SQ direction. Neither the importance of IQ as currently understood nor its shining history should be discarded; but a more important concept needs to be developed and then taught and tested for in American educational systems. Sternberg writes, “We need to address the question, is intelligence one thing or many? Clearly, it is many (72).” He goes on to say that none of the currently available theories do justice to the entire scope of intelligence “whether that theory is explicit or implicit (1988, 39).” In another work, Sternberg says that though many of us act as though intelligence is what IQ tests measure, very few of us really believe it (Sternberg 1985). A recent nonacademic publication, Blink (2005), makes many good points. Many of us so-called social scientists need to get past the idea that only academically oriented empirical results can add significantly to thinking in the area of management. Most nonacademicians get the theories and principles they follow to success from the popular press books that litter the shelves of most bookstores—physical or virtual. At any rate, in Blink, Gladwell says, “When we talk about analytic versus intuitive decision making, neither is good or bad. What is bad is if you use either of them in an inappropriate circumstance (143 & 144). . . . To be a successful decision maker, we have to edit (142).” Likewise, to be a successful decision maker, whether in academia or otherwise, everyone desiring success must use many views, yet edit and use what is appropriate when it fits needs, people, processes, and circumstances. SQ is a much better direction in which to edit than is the traditional IQ. Intelligence, as measured by the IQ test, is well known and is thought of as “mental capacity.” Yet human intelligence is a very complex and difficult concept. Most psychologists seem to now agree that intelligence is a highly complex arrangement of a large range of differing sets of skills, knowledges, and abilities that are very hard to measure or even define. IQ tests are designed to measure reasoning power, yet they are not completely indicative of true intelligence. Most IQ tests measure how well someone can adapt to the form of assessment represented in the IQ test or its proxy, and it seems all hope the adaptive ability is indicative of true intelligence. Most of us know those who earned all A’s in the university yet failed at “life.” The colloquial absentminded professors, the Ted Kaczynskis (Unabomber), the Ken Lays, the “I did not have sex with that womans”—and, sadly, the list could go on. One study reported the IQs for professors and researchers as 134, 128 for physicians, 119 for accountants and 85 for factory packers and sorters (Howard 1991). Yes, many reading this article like me will like this study because we are professors, not factory packers. These scores may have more to do with the test than with those being tested. I have always felt that IQ is an excellent measure of how well one will do in America’s educational system and on college admission tests. And that feeling is shared among many who study and theorize about college admissions and intelligence testing. Pinker (2002) tells of the “Asian intelligence myth,” in which, according to grades, Asian students in American universities perform at a level that indicates their IQs are about 20 points higher than those of their fellow students. Actually, he says, their IQs are only a couple of points higher. In Frames of Mind (1993), Howard Gardner presents his notion of many types of intelligence: a notion that has gained much respect. In this classic work, Gardner notes seven basic types of intelligence: verbal, mathematical-logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. This seminal work could explain why traditional IQ tests are poor at predicting success in many of life’s normal occupations such as management, leadership, sales, and other human relationship focused skills. This is not a primer on IQ or university admissions testing, because there are plenty of those; but it seems it would be useful to make the reader relatively aware of what items are covered on IQ tests. In Gregory’s 1999 text he presents a table useful for those purposes. It is entitled “Mean Gains in WAIS-II Subtests, IQs and Index Scores.” The concepts below summarize intelligence as measured in Gregory’s Subtest/Scale/Index (129): • Vocabulary as well as Verbal Comprehension. Processing Speed Index.

2

• Similarities and Comprehension. Arithmetic and Digit Span. • Information. Letter-Number Patterning. Picture Completion and Block Design. • Digit Symbol-Coding. Matrix Reasoning. Picture Arrangement. • Symbol Search and Object Assembly. Perceptual Organization and Working Memory Index. These sub-measures may not be totally meaningful to the reader, but they should make it clear what items are measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and how it attempts to indicate intelligence with concepts understandable to most of us. The Wechsler IQ test is a standard for measuring intelligence in the “normal” way. It has its usefulness as well as problems. This paper will attempt to point toward some of those key problems. In 1967 Guilford produced a classic work, The Nature of Human Intelligence, which provides 120 measures of intellect presented in a 3-dimensional cube. He identified five operational dimensions (1-evaluation, 2convergent production, 3-divergent production, 4-memory, 5-cognition). Then he labeled six product factor dimensions (1-units, 2-classes, 3-relations, 4-systems, 5-transformations, 6-implications). He then gave four content dimensions of 1-figural, 2-symbolic, 3-semantic, and 4-behavioral factors. This makes up his 120 measures in a 5 X 6 X 4 cube. Though quite old, this represents in a very good fashion how many dimensions there can be to human intelligence. Indeed, each of us can logically see that intellect is much more complex than even Guilford’s 120 measures. The popular press and academic writings are filled with theories espousing IQ, EQ, or a combination of both as predictors of success. But many others have found, as Drucker said; “‘There seems to be little correlation between a man’s effectiveness and intelligence. . . . Brilliant men are often strikingly ineffectual; they fail to realize that the brilliant insight is not by itself achievement’ (Henninger 2002, A16).” Major IQ theories fail to fully tell us how to understand IQ as a teachable and improvable measure that can help one become successful. Yes, IQ is a factor of success in life, especially within educational organizational systems; but it is by no means the only factor, or even the key one. A high IQ can help an engrossed person learn more about a situation, allowing them to become more effective or successful. But often we have witnessed someone who just loafs along in life and relies on their extreme intellect. I’ll bet you have seen both cases. Personally, I have seen more of the latter. IQ is important, but it does not take as much intelligence as one might think to succeed. History has shown that for American presidents, IQ alone is not enough. In many endeavors, very capable leaders are often held back because it was assumed their IQ was too high: often they assumed it! I purport that many potential leaders are so smart they simply do not see the need to build other non-IQ related skills, mostly people skills. It is quite normal to rely heavily on your strengths and not try to improve your weaknesses; though the opposite should be truer. In my Ph.D. program, which I began at the age 45, I saw the smartest person never complete the program and several of the least intelligent finish very quickly. In many endeavors brains alone are not enough. II. EQ, IQ, and SQ When I began to study IQ and its impact on leadership and management, I called a leading scholar in this area and ask for a reference that told more about IQ than the standard psychology text. I was referred quickly to Robert J. Sternberg by our psychology expert and distinguished scholar, Dr. Stephen Chew. One of the more important works was Sternberg’s (1996) Successful Intelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Success in Life. Sternberg starts with a comprehensive description of the IQ test as a traditional method of measuring intelligence. He goes on to discuss how the measures were developed and what they actually mean. In this 1996 work, Sternberg quickly discards the importance of traditional IQ and replaces it with what he calls successful intelligence. He defines this as the intelligence that really matters in reaching life’s most important goals. He helps develop for us what I call SQ. Below is a flavor of what Sternberg has to say. [N]ever lose sight of the fact that what really matters most in the world is not inert intelligence but successful intelligence: that balanced combination of analytical, creative, and practical thinking skills. Successful intelligence . . . can be . . . developed . . . with curricula that [challenge] creative and practical intelligence, not only . . . analytical skills. . . . [S]uccessful intelligence should be taught, because it is the kind of intelligence that will be the most valuable and rewarding in the real world after school—both in our work and in our personal lives. Our ultimate goal in understanding and increasing our intelligence should be the full realization in our lives of the intellectual potential we all have (269). Stenberg goes on to say what many other writers have said and what I have experienced, that is, that the multiple-choice IQ tests currently used can only measure a small part of intelligence. Likewise, successful intelligence cannot be measured by such tests. The kind of intelligence success takes is chiefly an issue of balance, fit, and flexibility. Successful intelligence requires knowing the what, who, when, why and how of using practical capabilities or the more creative aspects of intellect. Yes, intelligence is part inherited and partially developed. But

3

regardless of where it initiates, those with successful intelligence know their strengths and their weaknesses, and how to use or negate them as appropriate. In fact, balance, fit, appropriateness, and knowing what they all depend on, is a true demonstration of successful intelligence (Bouchard and Segal 1985; Brody 1985; Gregory 1994; Guildford 1967; Howard 1991; Pinker 2002; Sternberg all dates; among others). In the American System—Testing Equates to IQ The surface structures are created and molded by intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social patterns (Wilber 2000, 192). Of such standardized tests as the SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, etc., Sternberg says they “may predict people’s grades in college with pseudo quantitative precision (1996, 35).” And possibly this is simply the type of student many professors and administrators want—someone good at test taking and memorizing what they are told to learn. Those of us in academia know, as Sternberg suggests, that those standardized admissions tests “should be referred to as measuring academic intelligence. Furthermore, the schooling on which they are based is Western schooling, which many children in the world do not receive (68).” He says that relying on these tests is like placing more weight on the predictive measure than on whether someone can actually do a thing or not. Sternberg says it is akin to preferring the weather forecast over the weather. Time and again those in academia pay more attention to predictors than to performance. Most of the corporate recruiters I have worked with say that simply nothing is more useful in predicting future performance than past performance. I am reminded often that every person has some intellectual strengths that can be honed; but few have developed their capabilities fully, and, of course, none of us have developed them equally. There is a vast amount of unrealized capacity of successful intelligence not being developed when so many are tested and taught in traditional ways. Few professors or business leaders I know would argue the fact that many potential successes are missed with our current methods, simply to make it easier on administrators, professors, and even corporate recruiters. It seems rational to use standardized tests as a method to screen for college admissions, but many admissions personnel have admitted that standardized tests are forced choices that require little thinking and reasoning. It has been the experience of most educators and practitioners that developing questions is indeed the more difficult and demanding part of problem solving. Many can answer questions posed to them, but few can develop the correct question. Without a doubt, when one addresses the wrong questions correctly, more harm than good is done; and often our keen sense of satisfaction in a job well done is meaningless at best. Indeed, the standardized tests now employed often predict success poorly. Yet many still argue that they are better than any alternative proposed to date. Universities use these standardized tests since they are not that time consuming, they offer proof of differences among applicants, and they allow the institution to use the very limited resources of professors, classrooms, and dorm space more efficiently. It does seem very wise to admit students who have increased chances of success, but few do not realize that we miss many good people with the tests we now employ. Using a portfolio approach to admitting, with references and interviews and problem-solving questions, seems a good fit for corporate recruiting that could be further developed and used for admission to higher education. Our model of teaching, where a professor presents materials that are in a book, often using PowerPoint slides provided by a publisher, is ineffective and outdated. If a student has to be led through a normal text, they will have a hard time succeeding when they leave a university setting and have to develop themselves on their own. Teaching professionals need to avoid this easy way out and help others learn how to think, as we ourselves must begin to think and learn in our teaching. To prepare people for the unknown future of hypercompetition in a global context, we have got to teach people to think with what they know and can obtain without someone on hand to jam it into their brains. Lectures are brain transfers. Reading is a brain transfer method that must become the preferred way employees get their information; so start that now, and stop lecturing—demand that they read. What better way is there to teach people to think than requiring them to think in classroom environments? Requiring thinking beyond multiple-choice questions, questions about a book or lecture, or what one sees repeated in summary form on a PowerPoint presentation in an educational environment, teaches one to think in ways that can be applied in other environments. Teach them how to figure it out, not how to memorize it! Our current measuring methods and teaching methods are simply wrong. Teach and measure thinking, not just remembering. During my 40-year business and teaching career, I have never heard of any employee encountering a management problem that was presented as a multiple-choice question, especially a problem presented in question form where the answer was clearly obtainable from a specific book—a book that one had been required to buy! Nonetheless, that is the model most often used to teach any business discipline. Academic problems are most often presented in forms that in no way resemble real-life situations people will encounter when they become professionals; so what are they being developed for? Most people succeed in spite of the way we teach them; more often they succeed because of what or how we teach them. Academic problems that are presented on a silver platter with “the” answer under the platter are simply not reality. Not once in 22+ years of practicing “business,” managing

4

and leading people, did I have to do what was required to make an A on any of my business courses. The nearest I ever came was making presentations. Does this all mean the college courses are totally irrelevant? Could be; and in fact many courses are not relevant to anything. Decisions are choices under varying degrees of uncertainty; and if there is no uncertainty, there is no decision required. Too often we test for memory and referencing skills, when we need definitional and decision skills. Once a student goes beyond their freshman year in college, we need to take them beyond the memory-reference and teaching-testing model. Give only relatively vague general directions and let the students figure out what is expected: that is real life in the discipline of business. This leads to multiple questions about form, format, length, media, topic, and outcome assessment. As true teaching professionals, we must be willing and able to handle this just as we should be requiring of those we are charged with preparing for futures outside academia. Require learners to figure it out for themselves. What students learn in the classroom is such a small part of the university experience. It is a naive professor that believes students learn the most valuable lessons inside their classrooms: such a professor is in denial. As a computer programmer, I learned quickly the following steps in problem solving that need to be understood and practiced if one wants to develop themselves to teach for successful intelligence: 1) Recognizing the real problem as contrasted from the presenting complaint. 2) Defining the problem in terms that are understandable to those in the best position to develop answers. 3) Developing a strategy for solving the major part of the clearly defined problem. 4) Developing a way to find and present information related to the problem and possible solutions that avoid our preconceived notions, mental sets, frames, models, and normal fixations. 5) Developing alternative solutions—being sure to include status quo. 6) Choosing a solution and implementing it. 7) Monitoring and evaluation. 8) Adjusting and adapting as indicated by circumstances and people involved in the situation (Service and Maddux 1999). The most important step is of course defining the problem; because again, if you solve the wrong problem you have done more harm than good. When a professor simply asks questions they are not helping students learn how to deal with the most important part of problem solving, that is, formulating the question from too much or too little information. Sternberg tells us why standardized tests are still the norm for admission into almost all colleges and universities: “I believe that academics and others love statistics because they cover up how poorly things are going at the level of individual cases. When statistical measures account for 10 or even 25 percent of the variation in a group, the level of individual prediction is quite poor (1996, 228).” It seems obvious that we need to concentrate on figuring out a way to measure the 75% versus the 25% we are currently measuring. Perhaps the changes for the SAT requiring essays will help some in this area. But I have strong doubts about how these essays can be effectively graded. Three reviewers grading over a million essays with any degree of standardization seems next to impossible; why do we keep fooling ourselves? The ability to overlook bad grammar and see the intelligence of the writer is a tough task. Reviewers need to be looking for potential and possibly experience more than for past academic success or good writing skills. As an experienced college professor, I know how limited I am in determining intellect and potential from a person’s writing. After several semesters of personal interaction with my students, it is still difficult for me to judge intelligence from a written paper. In our smaller private university, we get to see students over a couple of years, yet I still cannot really judge intellect and potential that well. Though this area is complex, we must figure out how to address it if we desire to more clearly understand how to teach and test for success. Table 1 is a brief comparison of how we are currently teaching to how we should be teaching. All teachers beyond elementary school need to worry more about learning than assessing. Sadly, academia continues to go in the direction of multiple-choice tests and focused assessments over demonstrated applications learning. Again, do you prefer the weather, or the weather forecast, as an indication of what the weather is doing? I recommend you put them in a room and grill the heck out of them. In a classroom setting insist that learners tell you how to apply the rules, theories, and suggestions embedded in their outside reading. Require examples that go beyond your or their normal expertise and what they have just read. Have them give example after example and explain concept after concept as they will apply these in the world they will enter after their formal schooling. Push them as you push yourself. For example, do not just define objectives, but formulate meaningful objectives for any and every thing they can conceive of. Do not just define strategy or strategic types, but formulate many varied and different strategies for wide-ranging industries in differing cultures and many differing functional areas. Do not just tell of areas of human resources, but formulate meaningful policies for every conceivable situation. And our list could go on, but you get the picture.

5

Table 1- TEACHING FOR SUCCESS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The way it is Many principles teachers can measure Content – Hard quantifiable-measurable Systems and policies – “things” Facts and knowledge Telling about data What teachers want to say Teachers asking questions & thinking Teachers taking responsibility Helping them stay in the known Power – administer and manage Stability – maintain the bottom line They learn as you require of them Caution and control What teachers do as class-driving autocrats I-I win – uses fear Addresses how and surrenders to context Credit or blame – does things right Information hub watching the bottom line Humor about them Accepts status quo – a good soldier Authority – demands respect Not enough time Teacher-driven

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The way it should be A few principles learners can apply Process & Context – Soft non-quantifiable People relationship skills Emotional quotient and wisdom Communication of information & wisdom What learners need to hear Learners developing questions & thinking Learners accepting responsibility Moving all into the unknown Empowerment – innovate and lead Innovate and change – fun and caring We learn as you require of yourself Trust – use experimentation and speed Coach – what the class does with us We-we win – through enthusiasm Addresses why and masters context Shared responsibility–does the right things Problems solved watching the horizon Humor about yourself and with them Own person who challenges self Is respected through goodwill Makes time Learner-focused

Successful Intelligence Depicts Flexibility: IQ Might! A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a particularly profound or wise remark (Dawkins 2003, 14). We all need to begin to favor successful intelligence, SQ, as depicted in Figure 1, over the IQ of old. This figure was developed from over 800 exercises used to develop LQ© as shown in Service and Arnott (2005). In order to be brief, only a few of the principles depicted in Figure 1 will be addressed. And by doing this, I am demonstrating a principle that I use often in my personal teaching: leave them hanging if you really want them to learn. One of my most successful teaching experiences occurred when I simply refused to give an answer at the end of a Thursday afternoon class. The next Tuesday the whole class came in in an uproar. Wow—they had been thinking and discussing the issue since the prior class! Looking to his graduation, that student I would not answer wrote in the university newspaper, “You often learn the most from those professors that frustrate you the most (thanks, Dr. Service).” If a professor understands learning, they can realize that giving detailed answers proves how much we know but does not help others learn how to think. Indeed, letting your class convince you of what you already know is preferable over proving what you know. For successfully intelligent people are adaptable to roles they need to fill. They quickly learn how to analyze the situation at hand and then determine how to fit in, yet stand out, as appropriate. They exhibit career-successful intelligence, not just school-smarts. Characteristics displayed by those with SQ, depicted in Figure 1, are directly related to becoming a more successful person—a person that is effective because in part their successful intellect is more controllable than traditional IQ. Yes, one needs a good amount of IQ of old to be successful in a lot of life’s endeavors; but that requirement is simply not that much above average. With significant amounts of desire and EQ (Daniel Goleman all dates), many can overcome some limitations of IQ as it is traditionally measured. Just think about one with an IQ of 110 who works hard versus one with an IQ of 125 who is lazy because of their IQ. Certainly it is harder to get into institutions of higher learning without a high IQ, because they test your IQ for admittance. But it is not impossible. I would bet that most of the successful people you know did not attend the best universities or make top grades. That will not generally be true at an academic convention, but it will be true at any conference of professional business people. Many salespeople and executives exhibit an intellect that is often vastly superior to that of many doctors, lawyers, and professors: they can read and handle people and form deep relationships. Those high SQers leverage themselves through relationships with others.

6

From my experience, often the biggest drawback to an average IQ is a person knowing their IQ and allowing it to limit them; many of those with high IQs often rely on the score and do little in life. The second biggest drawback of a low IQ, as it is normally measured, is the testing that is required to enter institutes of higher learning in the United States. If one cannot get in “the” school, one cannot become a doctor or lawyer. Many geniuses throughout history have shown superior analytical, multivariant, and inductive thinking that seems to be natural. Sigmund Freud’s observations about genius could be of interest since IQ is a psychological construct. “In General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Freud said a genius is one who “longs to attain honor, power, riches, and the love of women, but he lacks the means of achieving these gratifications. So . . . he turns away from reality and transfers all his interest and his libido to the creation of wishes in the life of fantasy, from which the way might readily lead to neurosis (Wolman 1985, 859-60.)” It seems that perhaps Freud was not a multivariant thinker. To him, all problems stem from a lack of sexual fulfillment, and there appears but one human desire. Wolman disagrees with Freud when he says, “Creative work is a combination of great abilities combined with superb self-discipline, and mental disorder reduces and may destroy any creative effort (1985, 859).” Continuing on this topic, Wolman (860) says; “Maslow (1970) studied the lives of several prominent people, such as Einstein, Beethoven, Lincoln, and others. On the basis of this study, he prepared a list of 15 traits of individuals who reached a high level of self-actualization.” Wolman’s traits state that self-actualized people judge life in a very realistic and accurate manner. These individuals accept themselves and others for whomever they are, displaying a great deal of spontaneous original thinking and behavior while avoiding antisocial or unusual actions. They are devoted to solving general problems and see their life as a mission rather than as a quest for satisfaction of personal needs. Occasionally, they separate from others so that they can contemplate problems. They are not conformists, and develop their own ideas independent of the chief cultural influences of the present. They appreciate and love life not as naïve optimists but as people who admire its beauty. Many can reach beyond observable facts by going outside of usual human experiences. “All of them are very much involved with social problems and display sympathy and compassion for humanity.” They normally have close personal relations with a small number of people. Their approach to other people shows deep respect for other individuals regardless of race, creed, age, etc. “They would never choose inappropriate means to reach their goals.” They seem to enjoy the road to achievement as must as they do reaching the final goal. Most have a good sense of humor. “They are creative and have aesthetic inclinations; they are interested in poetry, science, music and inventions.” And finally, “Throughout their lives they retain intellectual independence and an independent outlook on life.” These 15 traits are not totally applicable to IQ, but they can help us understand SQ traits of analytical, multivariant, and inductive thinking. It seems that Freud used strictly nonmultivariant thinking in his statement; and Maslow’s 15 traits of genius exhibit large amounts of multianalysis and induction. Perhaps we should recall that “a further source of temptation here is that we have a single word, ‘intelligence,’ for what we are talking about, as though there were a single thing or unitary trait for that word to refer to (Mackintosh 1994, 8).” III. Teaching to Improve SQ Start by trying to help yourself, students, and clients learn to generalize from one situation to another. Each of us needs to be more thoughtful and reflective. We all need to be able to reframe and abstract and not continue to deal with the same problems time after time. Unraveling the complexity of IQ and the nature versus nurture debate—what can and cannot be taught—is a challenge that behavioral scientists will struggle with for years to come (Bouchard and Segal 1985, 454; among many others). Humans are simultaneously complex and simple, for “genes are nothing more (nor less) than instructions to make proteins (Bryson 2003, 408).” And “Over 60 percent of human genes, it turns out, are fundamentally the same as those found in fruit flies. At least 90 percent correlate at some level to those found in mice (411).” Problem-based learning, computer simulation games, and the case method are trendy business education techniques. These methods hope to expose students to real-life business situations where learning and processes of learning can eventually be generalized to other situations. These methods are most often effective because students do more than answer the questions of a professor. The students determine for themselves the key questions. The generalization of solutions and methods requires much thought and reflection. In a recent case conference, I got into a heated argument over providing questions for the students to use when reading a case. I was told, “That is how you get them involved.” For some reason, I could not convince most of the participants not to give case questions. In part, I saw the professors wanted the questions so they could know more about the case than the students, and in order to have a chance to answer questions in advance of the classroom discussion. This misses an essential part of a case. The case-writing conferences all require a case note to help the instructor know more about a case than the students and to provide ideas about how to teach the case. To me, the case note is totally bunk, because the point of

7

a case is to solve with what is given at the time, in the mood, and with the facts of the case. I wonder how a professor can in good conscience ask students to address a situation (case) the professor cannot address without a case note. To me, these notes are a professor’s cheat sheets! If we expect students not to have cheat sheets, why should we condone our own use of them? Answering predefined questions or having a cheat sheet is nothing at all like real management. The case note and predefined questions on a case are a total fabrication of reality. We all have to learn to develop our own questions from incomplete and otherwise available information to succeed in life. Lastly, computer simulations are great, but they are not real. These games respond to expenditures in TQM, automation, and advertising in ways that seldom happen in real life. A course that uses only a simulation game misses the vast majority of real life. I ask my students and demand of myself that we occasionally turn off our radios, TVs, and cell phones, and think about what we have discussed in a class: then learning can take place. Each of us could profit from taking time to reflect. Next time you have a discussion with anyone, just take some time later to think about what it meant and what you might learn from it or how you might do it better next time. I say everyone needs a strategy to address each and every situation they are about to encounter. And likewise, learning to learn from everyone in every situation, through reflection with the goal of seeing if past situations can be reframed to new problems or opportunities, should be a constant strategic-thinking goal. When you reframe situations, you often find more innovative and unexpected solutions. Successfully intelligent people make habits of reflecting, generalizing, reframing, and abstracting what they have seen, heard, and done to the current issues they face. Bill Gates is known for hiring people who are the best at what they do although many of them are not real computer specialists. Gates hires people with varied backgrounds because he is aware that software must satisfy more than computer experts. The SQ of Microsoft helps them reach many varied software users. Those among us who feel they must wait for each individual lesson to be served on a platter, as it often is in college, are destined for many surprises and little success. Being able to see the relationship of new situations to old situations increases successful IQ and the ability to solve problems. Action generally beats inaction! In America, we seek education in order to become more successful. Unfortunately, success is often defined in terms of more money and more things; but that is another ethical or moral issue, and this seeking of material goods often leads us to seek more efficiency in our learning than effectiveness in our learning. Witness the number of people that get their management principles from Trump’s Apprentice TV show. Many people are educated, but few of us take real advantage of our education. It happens in self- and continuing education as well as in formal education. The ability to scan the available information and make judgments about what is coming next and where to put your money and efforts is a key ability that leads to success. Successful people have a large network for information gathering. This allows them to see many things others do not. They see more because they make an attempt to pay attention to many things at the same time. In fact, I feel that the entire discipline of business education springs from economic inequality. I challenge my students by saying, “If you want to get rich, get out of here and make a difference in someone’s life. Find and then satisfy some inequalities of supply and demand and then you will succeed.” This is not easy. You can bet your competitors are trying to do the same thing. “No entity can learn without generating for itself the need to know (Schank and Birnbaum 1994, 84).” The following words might help us if we reflect on them: “Intelligence cannot be well understood without reference to the internal representation of knowledge. . . . External, contextual factors as well as internal, cognitive factors enter into the structure of intelligence, since what may be intelligent in one context may be superseded or become unintelligent in another (Butterworth 1994, 50).” Simply put, we just don’t know what we don’t know!

IV. Traits and Characteristics of SQ Related to Traditional IQ Not reading or studying drags people down. Most people that do not read do poorly on standardized tests. One of my favorite students, who received a full scholarship to law school because of his LSAT and undergraduate GPA, has an IQ of about 125, but reads hundreds of pages a week outside of his studies and has done this for the past 10 years. Conversely, George W. Bush knew next to nothing about world leaders and geopolitical events when he was first touted as a potential presidential candidate, in a large part, it seems, because he read little. Yes, Bush was not running for president all of his life, unlike many other U.S. presidential candidates, and he just did not see the need of this knowledge until he was embarrassed during an interview. Bush did seem to be a quick study, because he was able to overcome the comments about his low IQ and was successful in televised debates with opponent Al Gore (though he lost some of that edge with candidate Kerry in the next election, in part because he seemed to feel that as president he did not need to prepare and study as much). This lapse in preparation almost cost him reelection. Of course, once he became president, Bush surrounded himself with brilliant and successful people,

8

and seemed to understand that he could use a lot of help. I feel much like President Bush when I walk into a classroom of MBAs. I am excited about seeing where the class will lead me and what I will learn from them. Often when there is a question I don’t feel prepared to answer, there is a student in the class that can do it for me. When a student started comparing the U.S. to Finland in a negative light, I was saved by a student who had spent time in Finland and knew of their large oil exports and small population that allowed them to spend inordinate amounts on social issues. There is much to know, or at least to know that you do not know, for that matter. Bryson, in a recent work on “Nearly Everything,” contrasts the singularity of the big bang against the possibility that the event was just a part of an eternal cycle of collapsing and expanding universes. Citing a likelihood that “the universe is not only queerer than we suppose; it is queerer than we can suppose (Bryson 2003, 17),” Bryson says we think our galaxy has some 100-400 billion stars and that we think there are some 140+ billion other galaxies—enough, he says, that if each galaxy were an English pea they would fill the Royal Albert Hall in London. With these kinds of numbers, Bryson states, there should be millions of other advanced civilizations just in the Milky Way alone. Another similar work, The Emergence of Everything, by Harold Morowitz (2002), provides untold knowledge on the evolutionary unfolding of our known surroundings and our humanity itself. He goes on boldly to exclaim, “I now realize that no questions lie beyond the imaginative probings of science (40).” On the other hand, he knows we have a tendency to overestimate the completeness of our scholarly theories and dwell in “the arrogance of the present (65);” though “We are just at the beginnings of science. The unknown is not unknowable (84).” Complete a reading of Bryson and Morowitz with Wilber’s (2000) A Brief History of Everything if you want a map of how much we don’t know! But remember, in reading this article or anything else: “The whole idea of a more comprehensive map is to enrich, not deny, your own present understanding (xvii).” Hopefully, these analogies and brief notes on more thought-provoking work make you more aware that gaining a high IQ, really an SQ, is about leveraging more than what you have and more than you can reasonably learn: it is what we can learn! Success in life is about us or we, not me or you. It is about using the diversity and intellect of others to accomplish more than one person or small group can accomplish alone. It is about a worldview that is inclusive and allows learning from any and all sources, not a narrowing worldview. None of us is as smart as all of us. Start reading, studying, and seeking the thoughts and ideas of others for an improved meaningful IQ. Remember to thank them and cite them for their input. Think “we” versus “me” for a higher IQ: synergy is SQ. Many people simply do not test well, especially on the standardized tests that are the basis for admission to advanced educational programs in the U.S. One thing we know: we are missing many capable people by using these tests as the main criteria for admission to advanced educational programs in America. These tests are good predictors of who can be successful in passing tests in a given discipline, but they are poor predictors of who will be successful in the given profession. Yes, a high score on a GMAT means one will probably pass the MBA program at most schools, but a low score is not nearly as predictive of failure. Personally, I improved my GMAT from the 70th percentile to the 93rd percentile from age 28 to age 45. I feel the improvement was due mainly to increased reading. By the age of 35 I had read only 3 or 4 books, including textbooks, both as an undergraduate and an MBA student. Now at the age of 59, thankfully, I read my first 35-year equivalent or more each week: reading is my addiction! Think about the following quotes and what they might mean to our stuck-in-the-mud American university testing: “Since intelligence changes over the life span (although an individual’s ability relative to others’ may remain relatively invariant), then it follows that the indices used to infer ability necessarily must change (Brody 1985: p. 355).” “Apparently, intelligence and other mental functions are not totally separate entities independent from environmental influences. . . . [E]ven the best seed will not turn into a plant if it was placed in arid soil. Innate abilities, big and small, may never come to fruition in a destructive environment. The earlier in life the hammer hits, the greater the damage. In some instances the blow can be devastating and the destruction irreversible to both intelligence and mental health (Wolman 1985, 868).” Training and desire improve SQ if not IQ. Which does that tell you is the better indicator? One that can be developed (SQ), or one that is constant (IQ)? A person that wants to improve a standardized test score simply must work, seek, read, focus, and ask more. Yes, some “few” people may need help with test anxiety. If you feel you or someone else does need anxietycontrol help, I would suggest contacting a university and trying to find out if they know of a reputable person to help you. I continually notice the difference in students that have paid attention to and learned from their parents, family, and friends versus those that have not. It is amazing. “Intelligence can be studied in three ways: [1] the adaptation of an organism to its environment. [2] The complexity of the system of mental structures required by such an adaptation. [3] The individual know-how, that is, the ability of an individual to learn and use those complex structures in an appropriate way, according to the circumstances (Arom 1994, 138).” To succeed and learn over a lifetime, we need to study and learn in all these three ways. Adaptation, complexity and interaction, and developing know-how that is appropriate all have to be

9

present for success in today’s hypercompetitive world. Though adaptation is critical, one must avoid reinventing themselves every time they read a new book or hear a new idea. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore tried to remake himself many times, and it did not work for him. Adaptation is a necessity in the quest for success, but it can hinder one when others see it as a shallow attempt to become something one simply is not. Al Gore had so much going for him. “What was he thinking?” Common sense should tell us that people like to see us adapt; but they want to know that we have a firm foundation upon which our personality, intellect, and principles are based. Learn to concentrate and focus on learning all the time. In teaching as well as in learning we all should be much more concerned with successful IQ than with traditionally measured IQ. How this will be addressed is the subject of the next section. V. Measuring and Teaching for SQ, Not IQ “What is intelligence? Intelligence is hard to define and descriptions are generally beset with paradoxes. Thus, intelligence is attributed to those who have to think because they do not know a lot, and to those who know a lot and so do not have to think (Gregory 1994, 13).” Therefore it would follow that: “No one approach to studying intelligence is apt to be ‘complete.’ . . . A continuing challenge for the future will be the integration of results from various paradigms of research so that our understanding of intelligence will be transparadigmatic rather than specific to the research approach that it happens to use (Sternberg 1985, 110).” Hopefully, we have all gained some new perspectives and knowledge from this article. Many of the ideas were based on science, some on logic, some on experience, and some on supposition; but the important thing is not where the knowledge came from, but do you understand it and can you use it? It is not pure IQ or knowledge that counts; it is our application of IQ and knowledge that will determine our success in life. IQ, as expressed here as SQ, is one of the most changeable things in our lives. Yet it is normally measured as one of the least malleable of factors, as IQ tests of old have shown. Hopefully, you had rather measure for and teach toward something that is basically changeable (SQ) over something that is not learnable and teachable (IQ). If you want to improve success for all in life, junk the IQ measures of old and use the factors found in the Measurement and Improvement Matrix in Figure 1. These SQ measures are much more than just supposition; they have been carefully developed through a literature that includes over 500 cited sources and 800 instruments used to develop the concept of SQ, which is a big part LQ©, as shown in Service and Arnott (2005). You and your students need to assess yourselves against the traits shown in Figure 1. Then use the guidelines in Figure 2 to develop a strategy for improvement whether in learning or teaching. DuBrin (2004) says that about 40,000 books and articles have been written about leadership, yet there is still no one clear definition of leadership. DuBrin sees leadership as influence and impact. He suggests that leadership is currently a partnership instead of a dictatorship. And he indicates that all who aspire to be modern leaders must junk the old model of command-and-control leadership because followers, more than ever before, have the right to say no unless the relationship is mutually beneficial. This says to me and hopefully you that the traditional high IQ is not as important as an SQ that allows one to read others and not just use others. A high SQ allows you to help benefit others in any way they want: make all your teaching simply leading for success in life. The golden rule in our new era has become: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” This requires an SQ focused on others, not on you. All teaching professionals need to teach for leadership through SQ first and foremost: this allows for leverage of all available knowledge. Our goal must become understanding the complexities of SQ and how that relates to our old-style measurable IQ. We must seek to make IQ meaningful and applicable to you and your situation now and as your new situation will be in the future: make IQ = SQ. Most of us will die regretting not mistakes, but never trying. Listed below are the principles that are very pertinent to an SQ improvement quest (Covey 1990; Gulford 1967 and 1986; Pinker 2002; Service and Arnott 2005; and Sternberg all dates): • Develop a real desire to understand SQ versus IQ. • Develop a plan to improve how one teaches toward improved SQ and measures SQ. Figures 1 and 2. • Favor proactivity over defending or status quo. • Start every activity with the end in mind. • Define improvement objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bounded. • Put the important and the urgent first: as Covey states, put first things first. • Think “we” over “me”: win-win. • Seek to understand others’ views and alternatives beyond what we already know. • Work for synergy or power of a group or team over power of the individual.

10

• •

Understand the differences between the two sides of Table 1 and use its principles. Never stop learning, and seek continuing self-renewal in aspects of life related to physical, mental, and spiritual views and approaches. • Focus, desire, and attention are foundational to successful IQ. • The abilities to reflect and generalize are critical elements in continually improving SQ. • Successfully intelligent people motivate themselves before they worry about motivating others. • The abilities to remain flexible and accept criticism are requirements of SQ. • People with a high SQ let others lead them, especially about what it takes to motivate others. • Memory is important, but not necessarily a detailed memory: you just must be able to realize that something you know can be of use and where you can find out more if necessary. • Knowing you don’t know is often more critical to SQ than what you know. • The ability to pull unrelated things together, as well as breaking down complex things into more manageable parts, is of great help: this requires attention and practice. • Being a simplifier, not a complexifier, is the start of a solid SQ. • An SQ directed toward innovation requires an inquisitive seeking attitude. • SQ is the product of understanding the perspectives of others better than they do. • High SQ requires the motivation to acquire and store information of all types for potential future use. • SQ is the ability to see relationships between things and potential transformations. • Intelligence that pays off is tempered with self-control, reality, and balance. • SQ requires one to understand what it takes to fit in, yet stand out, in new and differing contexts. • Knowing when to continue and when to cut losses is key to renewed success. • High SQs’ desire to succeed overcomes their fear of failure. Successes and failures fear the same things. • Success is just a matter of luck: ask any failure and they will tell you this! • Those with high SQ have a strong bias for action. • Those with high SQ have a higher EQ than IQ—though a high IQ is great if it is not an end-all. • Maximize strengths and minimize or make irrelevant weaknesses. • Action that is the result of thoughts and plans is the trademark of high SQs. • Procrastination is not the norm for high SQ people. • Playing the blame game is out for high SQers. • Self-pity is never a part of the independently minded high SQ individual. • Those with high SQ know that success will require high levels of delayed gratification. • Knowing how much to take on and how much to let go of is a hallmark of high SQ. • High SQers are learners, not just educated. • High SQ individuals think and think about thinking about thinking and so on. • Systems thinking—seeing the big picture and the details—is a requirement of SQ. • Appropriate self-confidence is SQ. • Good SQ thinking is logical, emotional, practical, creative, innovative, and of all types. A substantial amount of progress on studying the neurological basis for human intellect has been made of late. However, the developing nature of research, and its potential and drawbacks to advancing our understanding of the neurological basis of intelligence, often goes awry and simply becomes too complex. The principles of SQ presented here must make sense to be useful. Much of the research I found during the development of this paper shows that the mental efforts related to intelligence testing are often exercises that most normal people cannot use (see Brody 1985 among many others to witness this complexity). One is left to wonder why researchers cannot “keep it simple, stupid.” Many of the research articles I found on IQ seemed designed to make a normal person feel stupid. Hopefully, this article encourages the reader to improve their own SQ and work to improve the SQ of others through a simple understanding that what matters most is the intellect to succeed in life’s normal endeavors, not what it takes to pass a university course. VI. Conclusion This study, as are so many, is limited. There are thousands of views of what intellect is and how to teach for it. But I challenge the reader to see the logic of what is here and to understand that by recommending my approach I am not saying it is the only approach. We too often think that when one says a certain thing they cannot

11

possibly know another thing: this indicates a poor SQ. If you are like me, lacking in one or many areas of SQ, do not look for excuses, but think instead about what Penrose said: Some kinds of thinking come easily to certain people, whereas other kinds come more easily to others. But I do not think that there is any essential difference—or that there is more difference between mathematical thinking and, say, planning a holiday, than there is between the latter activity and understanding a musichall joke. Human mathematical intelligence is just one particular form of human intelligence and understanding. It is more extreme than most of these other forms in the abstract, impersonal, and universal nature of the concepts that are involved, and in the rigor of its criteria for establishing truth. But mathematical thinking [all types of thinking] is in no way removed from other qualities that are important ingredients in our general ability for intelligent comprehension, such as intuition, common-sense judgment, and the appreciation of beauty (1994, 107). Remember: You cannot stop people from thinking, but you can start them. Encourage action, for when a person makes a mistake they are proving they are trying something, and they have a basis for refinements. Remember to practice what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “A capacity and taste for reading gives access to whatever has already been discovered by others . . .” or, as Plato said, “Learning is a matter of remembering what is important (sources of quotes are unknown).” In conclusion, study the dichotomies shown in Table 1 and figure out how to teach and measure for the principles on the right-hand side. Then study Figure 1, and teach and measure toward those principles. Study and apply what is shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, using the guide in Figure 2. Think about how we might optimize the power of action learning (Marquardt 2004), not action teaching. As professors, we don’t teach anything; we simply facilitate others in their learning. Be enthusiastic, curious, ready, willing, devoted, in reality, focused, and honest; but most importantly, just do it; for “We may be all there is. It’s an unnerving thought that we may be the living universe’s supreme achievement and its worst nightmare simultaneously (Bryson 2003, 477).” References Arom, S. 1994. Intelligence in Traditional Music. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 137-160. Bouchard Jr., T. J. and Segal, N. L. 1985. Environment and IQ. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 391-464. Bryson, B. 2003. A Short History of Nearly Everything. New York: Broadway Books. Brody, N. 1985. The Validity of Tests of Intelligence. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 353-390. Butterworth, G. 1994. Infant intelligence. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 49-71. Covey, S. 1990. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon and Schuster. Dawkins, R. 2003. A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love. New York: Mariner Books. DuBrin, A. J. 2004. Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam. . 2000. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. Gregory, R. 1994. Seeing Intelligence. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 13-26. . J. 1999. Foundations of Intellectual Assessment: The WAIS-II and Other Tests in Clinical Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Guilford, J. P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1986. Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Developments. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Henninger, D. 2002. There Must Be a Real Reason for Bush’s Success. The Wall Street Journal (December 13): A16. Howard, R. 1991. All About Intelligence: Human, Animals and Artificial. Marrickville, NSW: Southwood Press Pty. Humphreys, L. G. 1985. General Intelligence: An Integration of Factor, Test, and Simplex Theory. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 201-224. Hynd, G. W. and Wills, W. G. 1985. Neurological Foundations of Intelligence. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 119-158. Khalfa, J. ed. 1994. What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

12

Marquardt, M. J. 2004. Optimizing the Power of Action Learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Mackintosh, N. 1994. Intelligence in Evolution. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 27-48. McGrath, J. E., Martin, J., and Kulka, R. A. 1982. Judgment Calls In Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McGraw, P. C. 1999. Life Strategies: Doing What Works: Doing What Matters. New York: Hyperion. . 2000. The Life Strategies Workbook. New York: Hyperion. Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco: BK Publishers, Inc. Morowitz, H. J. 2002. The Emergence of Everything. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Penrose, R. 1994. Mathematical Intelligence. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 107-136. Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking. Schank, R. and Birnbaum, L. 1994. Enhancing Intelligence. In Khalfa, J., ed., What Is Intelligence? New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: 72-106. Service, B. and Arnott, D. 2005. LQ© The Leadership Quotient: 12 Dimensions for Measuring and Improving Leadership. Looking for a publisher. , R. W. and Maddux, H. S. 1999. Building Competitive Advantage Through IS: The Organizational Information Quotient. Journal of Information Science 25(1): 51-65. Sternberg, R. J. 1985. Cognitive Approaches to Intelligence. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 59-118. . 1985. Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. . 1988. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: Viking Penguin. . 1996. SuccessfulIntelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Success in Life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Time Special Issue. 2004. The Time 100: The Lives and Ideas of The World’s Most Influential People. Time, April 26: the entire issue. Vandenberg, S. G. and Vogler, G. P. 1985. Genetic Determinants of Intelligence. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 3-58. Wilber, K. 2000. A Brief History of Everything 2nd edition. Boston: Shambhala. Wolman, B. B. ed. 1985. Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons. . 1985. Intelligence and Mental Health. In Wolman, B. B., ed., Handbook of Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 849-872. Woodward, B. 2004. Plan of Attack. New York: Simon & Schuster.

13

Figure 1: SQ MEASUREMENT AND IMPROVEMENT MATRIX Evaluate against the reported traits in this Matrix NATURE (uncontrollable-born) NURTURE (controllable-made) Q1

STRENGTHS (enablers—advantages)

Q2

__memory + scholastic abilities __creative yet rational __bright and quick __analytical/multivariant/inductive

__thoughtful and reflective __educating self for success __wise and witty __a true thirst for knowledge

__ _________________ (self IDed trait)

__ __________________ (self IDed trait)

Q3

WEAKNESSES (derailers—disadvantages)

Q4

__poor memory or vocabulary __inability to use IQ __unprepared and/or nervous __gives poor impression of intellect

__ poor study & scholastic abilities __unfocused and inattentive __not learning from experience __poor mathematical abilities

__ __________________ (self IDed trait)

__ ____________________ (self IDed trait)

Millions upon millions of past encounters with these typical situations have, so to speak, ingrained these basic images into the collective psyche of the human race (Wilber 2000, 193). Tailor the Matrix below for yourself or students NATURE (uncontrollable-born) NURTURE (controllable-made)

STRENGTHS (enablers—advantages)

WEAKNESSES (derailers—disadvantages)

Q1 (Quadrant 1) Maximize _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________

Q2 (Quadrant 2) Hone __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________

Q3 (Quadrant 3) Make irrelevant or deflect _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________

Q4 (Quadrant 4) Minimize or change __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________

14

Figure 2: USING THE SQ MEASUREMENT AND IMPROVEMENT MATRIX To develop a strategy for overall SQ improvement, follow the steps below (McGraw 1999 and 2000): 1) Honestly assess yourself or another for each of the identified traits (Figure 1) or methods (Table 1). 2) Express goals in terms of specifics about events and behaviors. Be truthful and honest and don’t establish goals you do not intend to accomplish. 3) Develop doable goals that can be easily explained, and that can and will be measured. 4) Define objectives for each goal as SMART objectives. S=Specific, M=Measurable, A=Attainable, R=Relevant, and Realistic T=Time-Bounded. 5) Make sure goals are about things that are truly under your control, or figure out how to get someone else to help—may require professional help! 6) Develop programs and strategies that insure accomplishment of each objective. 7) Identify others with whom you are to work to support SQ development. 8) Network to learn specifics about followers and environments of the situations addressed. 9) Create accountability for progress toward goal accomplishment; provide rewards and punishments as appropriate to help complete improvements: use the psychology of rewards and punishment to reinforce needed or unneeded actions. Identify what is under the control of the person being helped (you, your students, clients, etc.) and what is not under their control. Skills of identifying, limiting distractions, studying, learning, relearning, stating, measuring, and ultimately using newfound skills for SQ development can serve anyone well in all areas of life. Do not lie to yourself or others about SQ!

1. List SQ shortcomings:

2. Describe how you will improve on the shortcomings:

3. Identify how progress will be measured:

4. Identify people that will support the person in their change:

15