Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.

By T. Judge, Amy E. Colbert, R. Ilies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004

616 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4a353f80faa941624565640f186026727230abaf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. John Antonakis
2. R. Arvey
3. R. Ilies
4. R. Lord
5. Robert P. Hogan
6. M. van Vugt
7. A. E. Gottfried
8. A. Gottfried

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Neal M. Ashkanasy
2. Adam M. Grant
3. R. Ilies
4. John Antonakis
5. R. Lord
6. Bruce J. Avolio
7. M. Dasborough
8. Jessica E. Dinh

In Social Psychology

1. Neal M. Ashkanasy
2. John Antonakis
3. R. Ilies
4. Adam M. Grant
5. T. Judge
6. Bruce J. Avolio
7. R. Lord
8. Jessica E. Dinh

Citations in the corpus

• In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners (2005, background): “Consider next that Judge, Colbert, and Ilies (2004) reported a meta-analytic and fully corrected correlation of .27 between intelligence and leadership.”
• What Have We Learned That Is Critical in Understanding Leadership Perceptions and Leader-Performance Relations? (2014, background): “Building on this trend, Judge and colleagues (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge et al., 2004) contributed several meta-analytic studies to the leadership field, which show that individual differences in intelligence and traits associated with the five-factor theory of personality (Costa &…”
• Emotional Intelligence: What Does the Research Really Indicate? (2006, background): “The authors concluded that “the relationship between intelligence and leadership is considerably lower than previously thought,” with a corrected correlation coefficient of only .27 (Judge et al., 2004, p. 542).”
• Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference research in leadership (2012, background): “Recent findings also support the relationship between intelligence and both leadership emergence and effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004), which may be perhaps unsurprising if one considers the complex roles leaders have in modern day organizations (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).”
• A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership (2011, background): “Furthermore, in ameta-analysis of 151 independent samples, Judge et al. (2004) found correlations ranging from .”
• TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP: AN INTEGRATION AND META-ANALYTIC TEST OF THEIR RELATIVE VALIDITY (2011, positive): “With respect to intelligence and leadership, Judge et al. (2004) meta-analyzed 151 samples and found that intelligence was positively related to leadership effectiveness (r c = .21).”
• Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams (2009, background): “Leadership emergence is likely to be more stable than leadership behavior because emergence is more strongly correlated with personality (R=.53 compared to R=.39; Judge et al., 2002) and intelligence (ρ=.25 compared to ρ=.17; Judge et al., 2004) than is leadership effectiveness.”