IQ, EQ, … but what about WQ?

A highly effective, driven, intelligent, self-educated individual, receiving a graduate degree from a prominent university, commences his professional career slowly climbing the ladder of success. He exhibits high level of intelligence and social interaction, which makes him quite admirable. However, his life, which should ideally be a series of successes based on his high cognitive and emotional intelligence, is simply a compilation of bad and unwise decisions. His high net worth and extensive networks are consumed by his unwise decisions. All those who met him acknowledged his intellectual capabilities, admired his social skills, and yet are shocked by his unwise decision-making processes.

The last few decades have witnessed several theories that attempted to measure human success and outstanding performance through standardized and customized tests. The first and most known is the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), introduced at the turn of the 20^th century by Binet, to measure cognitive intelligence (Colfax, Rivera, & Perez, 2010). By the end of the same century, a counter – or maybe complementary – test of aptitude abilities was refined by Goleman (1995), better know as the Emotional Quotient (EQ), that set new standards for psychologists and practitioners in evaluating achievers. This was followed by numerous theories and researches that attributed effective performance to holistic behavioral and innate elements stemming from multiple intelligences.

Multiple intelligences

The concept of multiple intelligences (MI) as introduced by Gardner in the 1980s has become a more acceptable notion. According to McFarlane (2011), Gardner introduced nine intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, naturalist, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential. His argument was that people’s performance and intellectual abilities are not contained to a single aptitude but rather to a bouquet of abilities. Some of these abilities are instinctive, while the majority is acquired. Following are a few recent concepts of acquired capabilities.

Service (2012) introduced the concept of Contextual Intelligence Quotient (CIQ) in an attempt to identify individuals who succeed in cross- cultural and contextual tasks and assignments based on their ability to adapt to change and be flexible. Wigglesworth (2012) highlighted Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) in addition to IQ, EQ, and Physical Intelligence (PQ) – good body management. SQ, according to Wigglesworth, is “the ability to behave with wisdom and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the situation” (2012, p. 16). Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, and Annen (2011) emphasized metacognitive Cultural Quotient (CQ) as an “individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during intercultural interactions” (p. 827).

Furthermore, Service and Arnott (2006) identified 10 quotients in addition to IQ and EQ, which they considered as skills necessary for successful leaders:

• DQ: Desire Quotient is the willingness to do whatever it takes – passion.
• RQ: Reality Quotient is identifying correct objectives, future projections and visions.
• CQ: Communications Quotient is level of verbal, written, body language – mutual understanding.
• PQ: People Quotient is relating with people – reflecting on the perceptions of others.
• BQ: Behavioral Quotient is exhibited external focus and dependability.
• AQ: Appearance Quotient is manifestation of the correct level of confidence.
• XQ: eXperience Quotient is learned through exposure and reflection – accomplishments.
• KQ: Knowledge Quotient is finding and learning the new and different.
• SQ: Situational Quotient is interpreting cues and developing strategies for addressing.
• MQ: Management Quotient is planning, organizing, leading-managing, controlling, staffing, teaming, motivation, efficiency, TQM, strategy and mentoring.

The eruption of several intelligence theories over the past few years indicates that the monopoly of IQ standardized tests, followed by the intensification of EQ use, is slowly being challenged through new researches, experiences, and tests. Moreover, the complexity and freedom of the individual person in this postmodern era renders customized and standardized tests somehow ineffective. Nevertheless, IQ and EQ lead, by far, the intellectual appeal race (Colfax et al., 2010).

Are these two measures – IQ and EQ – inclusive in setting the benchmark for intellectual and social integration? Could there be additional factors that play an important role in molding holistic effective individuals? For the purpose of this article, an individual’s success is defined as the degree to which he/she has achieved self-realization and true happiness; a state defined by both materialistic and emotional satiety. But first, let us define intelligence.

Defining intelligence

Sternberg (2004) defines intelligence as “skill in achieving whatever it is you want to attain in your life within your sociocultural context by capitalizing on your strengths and compensating for, or correcting, your weaknesses” (p. 1). Interestingly, intelligence is defined and measured through a comparative analysis within a certain population at a certain interval in time (Colfax et al., 2010). Hence, it is not an objective consistent definition that transcends contexts, geography, and it is not timeless. On the contrary, it is quite subjective, prompted by changing standards and interactive contexts.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is the measure of intelligence in comparison to others in the population (Colfax et al., 2010). Focusing on linguistic, logical-mathematical, memory, special, and reasoning abilities (Kumar, 2012), it is expected that individuals with higher IQ can achieve more in life. While many scholars argue that IQ remains constant throughout an individual’s life, the recent technological boom is proving otherwise – that IQ can improve with its problem-solving capacity given the right tools and context (Kumar, 2012).

Emotional Quotient (EQ), on the other hand, is “a measure of our ability, potential to notice and then manage our internal and external perceptions of our feelings and then control our reactions” (Kumar, 2012, p. 1). In a simplified format, EQ stands on five pillars: Self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills (Simmons, 2007). People can enhance their emotional intelligence through practice, training, and experience (Singh, 2011). Hence, it is a nurtured skill/ability.

Relevancy of IQ and EQ

How are IQ and EQ measures relevant to the 21^st century leader? Are they – and the several multiple intelligences and quotients – able to mold, uphold, and conserve a successful capable individual? Do all the measures entail a compilation of value-based prerequisites that enable the individual to choose a course of action that is personally, contextually, and universally veracious? In addition to cognitive and emotional intelligences, does humanity require a measure of wisdom that guide their behaviors, actions, and decisions?

The opening vignette is a real-life story not about unsuccessful relationships, infidelity, failed marriages, children from two divorcees, and a number of unsuccessful courtships; rather, it is about the lack of wisdom in decisions taken by this individual. The wisdom factor is embedded in our abilities to weigh our decisions and assess their consequences and implications. Therefore, high IQ levels and strong EQ portrayals are sometimes insufficient if not accompanied by value-based wisdom, or intelligence based on a Wisdom Quotient (WQ).

Wisdom Quotient (WQ)

Historically, wisdom has been associated with age, maturity, accomplishments, experiences, and/or social status. Early biblical writings refer to King Solomon as being wise, and the Book of Proverbs is full of wisdom sayings. Nowadays, however, the reference to wisdom is not very common, as if this attribute is no longer faddy or a necessity in today’s marketplace. According to Service (2012) who quoted Brooks (2011):

“Wisdom doesn’t consist of knowing specific facts or possessing knowledge . . . It consists of knowing how to treat knowledge: being confident but not too confident; adventurous but grounded. It is a willingness to confront counterevidence and to have a feel for the vast spaces beyond what’s known” (p. 37).

Brooks’ definition of wisdom intelligence emphasizes the ability of how to treat knowledge, whether this knowledge stems from cognitive or emotional foundations. Wigglesworth’s (2012) Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) highlights deep wisdom behavior and encourages individuals to be wise change agents in society. Singh (2012) focuses on wisdom and SQ in deepening the self-awareness pillar of EQ. Simmons (2007) and Kumar (2012) advise emotionally intelligent leaders to behave and make choices wisely. Leadership wisdom encompasses understanding self, others, and the context, harmonizing goal achievements within various viewpoints, and seeking the short and long term common good through balancing intrapersonal, interpersonal and extrapersonal interests (Service, 2012).

Based on the above, and for the purpose of this article, WQ is defined as follows:

Wisdom Quotient (WQ) is the ability to collect objective data, process it cognitively and emotionally, weigh the consequences intellectually and socially, choose the appropriate course of action, and manage the implications positively.

Integration of IQ, EQ, and WQ

The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) measures the person’s ability to process as well as reason through information quickly and logically. The Emotional Quotient (EQ) refers to the person’s ability to socially accustom him/herself to the constantly shifting social situation. While there are several standardized and customized tests to measure IQ and EQ, no documented research on testing wisdom intelligence exists today. WQ is a new measure of intellect that requires integration with the two recognized platforms – IQ and EQ. Following are a few recommendations to help improve your WQ:

• Manage knowledge: With such vast information available on hand, managing knowledge – and determining what constitutes knowledge – is challenging (Brooks, 2011). Use your cognitive abilities to separate fact from fiction and to dissect emotionally charged materials. Yet, utilize social and emotional skills to dig deeper into knowledge bases.
• Take your time: Wise decisions require time to articulate, formulate, and assimilate. Seek “wise” counsel from close and objective companions before engaging in a life-changing decision. By taking your time, you should be seeking the short and long term common good of all stakeholders (Service, 2012). Furthermore, timely decisions are wise decisions; hence, wisdom is depicted in time/contextual decisions.
• Choose wisely: You may think that your high IQ – which sometimes elevates you among your peers and may instigate a feeling of superiority – can shape your decisions. This is a myth. In fact, the “smarter” you are, the more you should contemplate your decisions and alternatives (Kumar, 2012). Keep in mind that other people possess unique contributions too.
• Seek a balanced outcome: Wisdom intelligence involves harmonization of outcomes. For example, history ascertains that a decision to go to war is never a wise one; it is sometimes necessary, but not wise if we evaluate the outcomes and consequences. An understanding of self and others can achieve that balance (Rockstuhl et al., 2011), or at least seek it.
• Understand the context: The Contextual Intelligence Quotient (CIQ) measure attributes much to wisdom in taking action under uncertain or unknown conditions (Service, 2012). Put an effort in recognizing and appreciating the diversity of alternatives and reactions before making a final judgment. Wisdom intelligence requires a holistic and inclusive approach to problem solving, not a reactive spontaneous one.
• Uphold relational balances: Since most decision-making processes involve consequences on people and their lives, a highly effective WQ individual should seek to keep relations with all concerned stakeholders intact – or at least respectable (Service, 2012). Social interaction, interpersonal skills, and relationships should not be sacrificed on account of our own dignity (McFarlane, 2011). An understanding of individual uniqueness is needed.
• Know your values and judgments: Wisdom is best displayed in uncertain and complex circumstances (Service, 2012). A person who is unaware of – or has intentionally ignored – his/her value-system and ethical standards may not make wise judgments. The starting point of a WQ is the inherent values; losing our value system is like losing the compass for wisdom intelligence.

The above recommendations may constitute a good starting point for wisdom intelligence measures. For those interested in exploring the WQ further, Dr. Monika Ardelt established an online questionnaire to help individuals examine their “wisdom” level. The author of this article does not endorse this standardized test, but is making it available to curious readers and current and potential researchers who may want to explore the wisdom intelligence factor further.

To access the questionnaire, click on: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/magazine/20070430_WISDOM.html

References:

Brooks, D. (2011). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement. New York: Random House.

Colfax, R.S., Rivera, J.J., & Perez, K.T. (2010). Applying emotional intelligence (EQ-I) in the workplace: Vital to global business success. Journal of International Business Research, 989-98.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Kumar, T. (2012). Is EQ more important than IQ. Golden Research Thoughts, 2(6), 1-3.

McFarlane, D. A. (2011). Multiple Intelligences: The Most Effective Platform for Global 21st Century Educational and Instructional Methodologies. College Quarterly, 14(2).

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840.

Service, R. (2012). Leadership and innovation across cultures: The CIQ-Contextual Intelligence Quotient. Southern Business Review, 37(1), 19-50.

Service, B. & Arnott, D. (2006). The leadership quotient: 12 dimensions for measuring and improving leadership. New York: iUniverse.

Simmons, K. (2007). Sharpening your emotional intelligence (EI): Unlike IQ, you can raise your EQ. Podiatry Management, 26(1), 203.

Singh, J. (2011). Enhance your EQ. New Zealand Management, 58(2), 48.

Sternberg, R.J. (2004). Definition of Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/sternberg.shtml.

Wigglesworth, C. (2012). Spiritual intelligence. Personal Excellence, 17(9), 16.