Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Social Intelligence: Introduction and Overview for the Army's Human

Social Intelligence: Introduction and Overview for the Army's Human

______

Social : Introduction and Overview for the Army’s Human Dimension Initiative ______

White Paper February - 2016

Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force Capabilities Development Integration Directorate Mission Command Center of Excellence (MC CoE)

Social Intelligence Introduction and Overview for the Army’s Human Dimension Initiative

February 2016

Primary Author: Joseph Rodman Author’s Editor: William Hardy Contract Team Lead: Don Kroening

Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force (HDCDTF) Mission Command - Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate (CDID) 806 Harrison Drive Building 470, Fort Leavenworth, KS 660627-2302 913-684-4521

https://combinedarmscenter.army.mil/sites/hd/HD_Library/HD_Dashboard.aspx

Produced by Booz Allen Hamilton for the Contract: W911S0-11-D-0012-0007

ii Executive Summary

This is the first of three papers that the Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force (HDCDTF) will be producing on social intelligence in 2016. The first paper, presented here, will discuss the historical and theoretical development of social intelligence. The intent is to sketch an outline of existing research that has attempted to define social intelligence in order to provide readers with the appropriate context— including the important findings, challenges and limitations that others have revealed and encountered—to consider as the Army, and particularly its Human Dimension efforts, develops and executes its interest in the concept. The second paper, to be published in May 2016, will examine how scholars and practitioners have distinguished social intelligence from . The two concepts have received significant attention—both scholarly and popular—over the past several decades, appeal to similar interests and often seem to serve similar purposes. As such, it will be important to discuss how social intelligence and emotional intelligence overlap and diverge. The third paper, to be published in August 2016, will investigate methods that the Army might consider implementing or learning from that attempt to (1) assess social intelligence in individuals and (2) develop or improve social intelligence (or components of social intelligence) in individuals. Supporting Objective #1.2 (“Social Intelligence”) in The Army Human Dimension Strategy, which charges the Army to, “Develop trusted Army Professional as effective team members who thrive in social environments, adapt to diverse cultures, communicate effectively, and build relationships,” provides the catalyst for the series and serves as the ultimate goal of its research.1

Social intelligence provides a powerful framework for understanding human behavior in social contexts. Although the specific components that comprise social intelligence remain debatable, the concept is generally accepted to consist of two broad functions, social awareness and social action, which help individuals achieve a personally-valued goal in a social setting. Social intelligence’s long research tradition, particularly that which focuses on its role in job performance and effectiveness, has significant overlap with current and future U.S. Army interests. This includes the Army’s renewed emphasis on the Human Dimension and its goals of developing effective leaders and optimizing human performance to prepare for the operational environment of the future. As the Army explores the utility of social intelligence to help it succeed now and in the future it may benefit from lessons that have been established in the existing literature in order to conceptualize social intelligence in it own terms and for its own specific purposes.

The first step in establishing social intelligence’s role in the Army is to define the concept. This is critical to standardize its use and clarify why it is relevant and important

1 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015: Building Cohesive Teams to Win In A Complex World: Cognitive Dominance, Realistic Training, Institutional Agility, 2015, 8.

iii to the specific needs and interests of the Army. The popularity and intuitive nature of social intelligence make it especially vulnerable to misuse and misinterpretation, rendering the task of establishing its bounds in the Army particularly important. One hundred years of research on social intelligence, including important work by and for the Army, reveals that this has been a challenging endeavor. Despite the lack of consensus on the precise composition of social intelligence, however, it is clear that there are broad features of its basic principles that correspond to skills, traits, attributes, and competencies that the Army has already established as critical to Soldier performance and leader effectiveness in existing doctrine and publications. This includes “interpersonal tact,” “mental agility”, “social ,” and “interpersonal adaptability.” In order to formulate an appropriate Army-specific definition of social intelligence that meets its interests and needs it is logical and instructive to draw upon existing and accepted skills, traits, attributes and competencies that have been established in the Army through empirical research and cited in doctrine. As such, the HDCDTF proposes the following recommendations:

§ The Human Dimension Task Force should solicit an extensive and empirical study of the role of social intelligence in the Army. The intent should be to: o Identify, through empirical evidence, the skills, traits and attributes that comprise social intelligence in an Army context. This includes cognitive and behavioral features. o Determine how these features correspond to or overlap with existing Army doctrine on leadership, decision-making, and Soldier performance. o Determine what specific features of social intelligence are required to achieve Army success in the operational environment of the future.

§ Informed by the study above, the Army should establish a single definition of social intelligence as it relates to the Army’s interests and needs. This definition should incorporate existing and relevant (e.g., those that are social in nature) skills, traits, attributes, and competences that have been identified in various doctrine and publications as essential to Army leadership and performance in order to ensure relevance and consistency between efforts. The intent of an official definition of social intelligence is not to establish new or original requirements for professional development in the Army, but to provide a useful framework with which to conceptualize existing efforts. The extensive body of research on social intelligence that is reviewed here should inform the definition. Notably, the definition should include two parts: one acknowledging the cognitive component of social intelligence, and one acknowledging the behavioral component. Once this definition is established, we suggest that social intelligence be integrated in future versions of key publications and doctrine where appropriate to standardize an understanding of the concept and to serve as a tool to better understand how certain are required for effective leadership and more optimal performance.

iv § The HDCDTF’s two subsequent papers on social intelligence, the first examining the difference between social intelligence and emotional intelligence and the second investigating methods and tools to assess and develop it, should serve to inform and guide the two recommendations above.

v Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Significance 2 Academic Background on Social Intelligence 5 Theoretical Basis 6 Early Interest (1920-1950) 7 Waning Interest (1950-1980) 9 Transformation of Perspectives and Interests (1950s & 1960s) 10 Structure of Intellect Model (1960s) 13 Renewed Interest (1980-present) 15 Implicit Theories of Intelligence 16 Intelligence as a System 17 Gardner’s Theory of Multiple 17 Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence 19 Multidimensional Conceptualizations 20 Multitrait-Multimethod Approaches 22 Personality View 24 Summary of Contemporary Social Intelligence Research 24 Social Intelligence and Leadership 26 Social Intelligence and the Army 30 Doctrine 31 Social Intelligence Research in the Army 33 Conclusion 36 Appendix A - Definitions of social intelligence 39 Appendix B - Components of social intelligence from various models and measures 40 Appendix C - Related concepts and their definitions 42 Appendix D - Traits, attributes, competencies, and characteristics identified as important to 43 Army leadership and/or performance and relevant to social intelligence References 44

vi Introduction

While there continues to be debate about the precision of various definitions, social intelligence is generally accepted to be a combination of social awareness (also called social ) and effective social action to achieve some desired goal in a social setting. Social intelligence has been proposed as a useful concept that can predict or explain variations of individual effectiveness in social situations. The first use of the term can be traced back nearly a century, but more rigorous attempts to accurately outline an empirically based practical and theoretical framework of social intelligence have been more recent. Research on social intelligence has a broad array of specific interests and applications—essentially any conceivable circumstance involving two or more people—but the majority of efforts focus on its impact on goal-oriented behavioral effectiveness, including its linkages to leadership and job or task performance.

This has clear implications for the U.S. Army’s interest in developing effective leaders and optimizing human performance—two core goals guiding its Human Dimension effort. For instance, the U.S. Army Operating Concept emphasizes that Army commanders need to appreciate the “social… influences affecting human behavior and the mission;”2 it goes on to highlight the importance of capitalizing on behavioral science to develop social empathy and judgment to optimize human performance of its personnel.3 Furthermore, the U.S. Army Human Dimension Concept cites the “social component”, including improved social and interpersonal capabilities, as critical to “developing and maintaining trusted, valued relationships.”4 Social intelligence provides a useful framework for the Army and its Human Dimension initiative to consider these interests and develop strategies to address them among its diverse personnel.

Relying on the long research tradition of social intelligence, the Army may benefit from past lessons learned to conceptualize social intelligence in their own terms to advance Army goals to prepare for the operational environment of the future. It may also help direct future research to learn more about how the concept relates to a variety of Army interests, use existing Army attributes and competencies to define social intelligence, and, once defined, incorporate social intelligence into existing doctrine to formalize the Army’s understanding and application of the concept—to better identify, assess and develop more effective Army and civilian professionals, build cohesive teams, and optimize human performance.

The purpose of this white paper is to provide an overview of research in the domain of social intelligence. It canvasses relevant academic literature to review the historical and theoretical development of the concept. After describing the foundation of social

2 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World: 2020-2040, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, October 31, 2014, 19. 3 Ibid., 39. 4 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Human Dimension Concept, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7, May 21, 2014, 15.

1 intelligence research, the paper describes how scholars have examined linkages between it and effective leadership and performance. Importantly, the Army has already conducted empirical research on social intelligence—much of it by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). This white paper highlights a number of these studies, detailing their contributions to the application of social intelligence research to specific Army interests. Social intelligence has significant overlap with the Army’s Human Dimension initiative. The Army Human Dimension Strategy identified social intelligence as one of the five supporting objectives to its “Agile and Adaptive Leaders” line of effort.5,6 The intent of the white paper therefore is also to provide the Human Dimension community with the vocabulary and theoretical understanding of the academic and practical development of social intelligence to contextualize the Army’s interest in the concept and initiate informed dialogue about how it may be applied to Human Dimension efforts.

Significance

The Army is a complex social system. It is comprised of a diverse group of people who work in teams to achieve organizational goals. In addition to communicating and coordinating among its own members, individuals in the Army—officers, enlisted personnel and civilians alike—are often expected to interact with teams and individuals from external institutions (the American public, sister services, partner forces, foreign communities, enemy combatants, private institutions, domestic and foreign government agencies, and so on).7 As the operational environment evolves to become ever more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, so too do the Army’s (and its personnel’s) relationships with members of internal and external groups.8,9 The nature of this environment requires the Army to optimize the performance of its professionals and build teams based on mutual trust so that they can excel in such circumstances.10,11,12 This requirement encompasses a first principle of Mission Command and the core of the Army’s Human Dimension vision for 2025 and

5 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015: Building Cohesive Teams to Win In A Complex World: Cognitive Dominance, Realistic Training, Institutional Agility, 2015, 8. 6 On page 8 of The Army Human Dimension Strategy, articulated as: “Supporting Objective #1.2. Social Intelligence. Develop trusted Army Professionals as effective team members who thrive in complex social environments, adapt to diverse cultures, communicate effectively, and build relationships.” 7 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015, 4. 8 Ibid., 2. 9 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Operating Concept, 10. 10 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-0: Mission Command, May 2012, 2-1. 11 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015, 5. 12 For more information about the role of mutual trust in the Army please refer to: Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force, Building Mutual Trust Between Soldiers and Leaders (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Mission Command Center of Excellence, January 2015): http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/HDCDTF_White%20Paper_Building%20Mutual%20 Trust%20Between%20Soldiers%20and%20Leaders_Final_2015_01_09_0.pdf

2 beyond.13,14 To achieve this capability, the Army demands that it identify, recruit, develop, and promote personnel who “are competent and committed… agile… and [can] think critically.”15 The Army identifies social intelligence as a critical component of this effort to “develop trusted Army Professionals as effective team members who thrive in complex social environments, adapt to diverse cultures, communicate effectively, and build relationships.”16

In general, the social skills identified in Army doctrine and publications that establish standards important to leader effectiveness and Soldier performance correspond to broad principles established in the social intelligence literature. These include terms such as “mental agility” (in ADRP 6-2217 and TP 525-3-118), “interpersonal tact” (in ADRP 6-2219), “interpersonal adaptability” (in TP 525-3-720) and “social empathy” (in TP 525-3- 121). As will be discussed later, one major thread of social intelligence research (the cognitive-behavioral perspective) argues that the concept consists of two critical components: social perceptiveness (the cognitive component) and behavioral flexibility (the behavioral/action component). In part, this largely corresponds with existing Army doctrine described with an operational vocabulary. For instance, notions of social perceptiveness in the social intelligence literature overlap with the Army’s understanding of “mental agility” and “social empathy” while behavioral flexibility overlaps with “interpersonal adaptability” and “interpersonal tact.”

These and other social skills are important for Soldiers, leaders, and civilians across the force and in a variety of positions. However, there are particular roles and responsibilities for which social intelligence is especially important, for now and for the anticipated operational environment of the future. These include roles involved in (1) security force assistance/combat advising, (2) brigade command, (3) strategic leadership, (4) joint force interactions, and (5) non-commissioned officer leadership.22 A recent publication by ARI on “organizational social effectiveness” reviewed the previous research investigating the relationship between the responsibilities of those involved in these roles and organizational effectiveness.23 These observations regarding the social component of specific roles within the Army are summarized in Figure 1.

13 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-0: Mission Command, 2-1. 14 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015, 5. 15 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015, 5. 16 Ibid. 17 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, August 2012, 5-2. 18 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Operating Concept, 21. 19 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, August 2012, 5-2. 20 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Human Dimension Concept, 14. 21 Department of the Army, The U.S. Army Operating Concept, 39. 22 Melissa Shuffler, Heidi Keller-Glaze, Beret Strong, William S. Weyhrauch, Jessica Jenkins, Jonathan Bryson, and Kimberly A. Metcalf, Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography, Research Product 2014-03, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, January 2014, 3-6. 23 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness, 3-6

3 Army role Linkage to social intelligence § One of the more important mission sets for the Army now and in the future. § Interpersonal/social skills fundamental to partner force relationships. § Critical to establish credibility with partners and serve as a positive role model: Security force o Partner of advisor(s) is important to success; assistance/combat o Research indicates these perceptions are largely based on (1) advising impression management and (2) self-monitoring, two key components of social intelligence. § Considerable overlap between social intelligence and cross-cultural competence. § Of the four competencies required for successful brigade command, two relate directly to social intelligence: leadership skills and personal capabilities. § Personal capabilities includes the “’the ability to regulate and monitor one’s Brigade command ’” and “’self-awareness and self-understanding’”. § Identified leadership skills almost all overlap with social intelligence: o Build and leverage teams, build consensus, influence chain of command, and develop positive command climate. § Identified competencies required of effective strategic leaders include several that have clear overlap with social intelligence or similar concepts: Strategic o Identity (self-awareness), mental agility (social awareness and leadership perception), cross-cultural savvy, and interpersonal maturity (social intelligence and effectiveness) § Similar competencies required for security force assistance/combat advising. Joint force § Building trust, communicating, and critical thinking are all important to joint interaction force operations. § Requires self-awareness, empathy, self-regulation, and impression management. § The backbone of the Army; direct leaders. Non- § Relies extensively on social intelligence and social effectiveness. commissioned § Balancing mission effectiveness, training responsibilities, Soldier welfare, and officer leadership discipline among diverse teams requires significant social skill. Figure 1. Summary of research investigating the importance of "social effectiveness" to critical Army roles.24

As Figure 1 illustrates, social intelligence touches a range of critical functions in the Army. In many cases, the Army already describes and addresses these functions in doctrine and other publications in its own terminology. With the notable exception of The Army Human Dimension Strategy, however, very rarely does it explicitly mention social intelligence in doctrine and official publications.25 As the term has become more commonplace over the last decade it has attracted attention in research about and for the military.26 As this popularity suggests, social intelligence serves as a potentially

24 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness, 3-6 25 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015, 8. 26 For instance, Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness, 2014; Ng Wai Kit, Strategic Military Leaders—Leading Tomorrow, Strategy Research Report, (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2008); Robert J. Schneider and Jeff W. Johnson, Direct and Indirect Predictors of in United States Army Junior Commissioned Officers, Technical Report 1171, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, November 2005; Tara D. Carpenter and Michelle M. Wisecarver, Identifying and Validating a Model of Interpersonal Performance Dimensions, Technical Report 1144, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, March 2004;

4 powerful and informative construct. However, references to social intelligence (in the academic, military, and popular literature alike) vary in content and character considerably. As a compellingly descriptive concept and an important component of the Army’s Human Dimension interests, it is critical to clearly describe the concept as it has developed over the past century. Such a description will provide the Human Dimension community with a common understanding of the concept so that it may draw upon extant research to more effectively inform its own future efforts, identify how the Army may already be addressing functions of social intelligence, and where gaps relating to social intelligence might exist that need to be addressed.

Academic Background on Social Intelligence

The existence of social intelligence seems intuitive among experts and the general public alike.27,28 It is logical to believe that abstract academic abilities are at least partially distinct from social abilities. More commonly, this is akin to appreciating the difference between “book smarts” and “street smarts”. Indeed, scholarly interest in social intelligence followed shortly after Spearman’s conceptualization of ‘g’, the general factor of intelligence (which forms the basis of our common understanding of IQ).29,30 However, it has proved difficult to clearly delineate the bounds of social intelligence and rigorously establish its distinctiveness from general (measured by familiar IQ tests) and similar concepts (such as emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, social competence, and so forth). 31,32,33 Ultimately, efforts to do so have been inconclusive and debate on the topic continues today.34

William H. Turnley, The Impact of Social Intelligence and Impression Management on Perceived Leadership Potential and Group Cohesiveness (Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, 2001). 27 Martin E. Ford and Marie S. Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” Journal of Educational 75, no. 2 (1983): 196. 28 John F. Kihlstrom and Nancy Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” in Handbook of Intelligence, edited by Robert J. Sternberg (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2000): 359. 29 C. Spearman, “’General Intelligence,’ Objectively Determined and Measured,” The American Journal of Psychology 15, no. 2 (April 1904): 201-292. 30 As will be discussed in more detail later, the American Edward L. Thorndike first proposed social intelligence in 1920. Charles Spearman first conceptualized the general intelligence factor (‘g’) in a paper in 1904 (cited above) and elaborated upon this in his 1927 book, The Abilities of Man. 31 Jennifer Hedlund and Robert J. Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," in The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, edited by Reuven Bar-On and James D.A. Parker (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000): 136. 32 Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner, and Richard D. Roberts, “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” in Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth, by Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner, and Richard D. Roberts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002): 557. 33 Susanne Weis and Heinz-Martin Süß, “Reviving the Search for Social Intelligence—A Multitrait- Multimethod Study of its Structure and Construct Validity,” Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007): 4. 34 Kerri A. Crowne, “The Relationships Among Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence,” Organization Management Journal 6 (2009): 149.

5

As with much of the behavioral sciences, it is no simple task to define social intelligence in clear and unequivocal terms. This necessitates an overview of the broader environment of the behavioral science from which interest in implicit and explicit conceptualizations of social intelligence emerged. It also requires that this broader theoretical context be integrated with a description of the variety of conceptualizations and operationalizations of social intelligence that have been proposed over the nearly 100 years since the terms was first introduced. Doing so will yield a review of the major movements and trends that have shaped the field and understandings of social intelligence. It provides important context to better understand the variety of conceptualizations of social intelligence that have been proposed, where they come from, and their potential utility in and for the Army and its Human Dimension efforts.

Theoretical Basis

Interest in social intelligence has been cyclical since it was first introduced as a concept in 1920.35,36 Part of this is due to periodic diversions of scholarly interests and resources as a result of naturally shifting trends in the field (away from social intelligence and towards emotional intelligence during one period, for instance), but part of it is also due to the inability of scholars to come to a standardized understanding of what social intelligence actually consists.37 This includes disagreement and contradiction among the variety of conceptual definitions (what the concept means) and operational definitions (how the concept is measured) that have been put forth over the years. Conceptual definitions of social intelligence range from equating it to specific cognitive factors (such as social judgment) to all encompassing models that incorporate a variety of personality (such as extroversion), (such as achievement orientation), and cognitive ability (such as ) factors and skills.38 To add to the confusion of the debate, competing operational definitions have been validated through a variety of often-inadequate methods (most commonly self-report methods, with which individuals have been shown to consistently over-estimate their own abilities). Moreover, popular understanding of social intelligence—and largely how it entered our common vocabulary—is the result of best-selling self-help literature that makes sweeping, anecdotal claims and generalizations about complex, nuanced and often contradictory empirical research. These circumstances pose a significant challenge to understanding a concept such as social intelligence that makes intuitive sense but whose conceptual and operational validity remains elusive. As such, it is important to understand the context and justification for the most notable claims made about social intelligence throughout

35 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 551. 36 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 137. 37 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 196. 38 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 137.

6 its history in order to appreciate and assess its potential utility as well as its inadequacies.

Early Interest (1920-1950): “To act wisely in human relations”

The American psychologist Edward L. Thorndike first proposed the concept of social intelligence in 1920.39 He defined it as “the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations.”40,41,42,43,44 He argued that consisted of three distinct concepts: (1) abstract, (2) mechanical, and (3) social intelligences.4546,47 Abstract intelligence was the ability to understand and manage ideas, mechanical intelligence was the ability to understand and manage concrete objects, and social intelligence was the ability to understand and manage people.48 Socially effective action was at the heart of Thorndike’s definition and remains central to current notions of social intelligence, including for the Army’s purposes and interests.49 It is important that Thorndike proposed that these social abilities comprise a distinct intelligence (as opposed to a more general personality trait, for instance). As it is most commonly understood, an intelligence of any kind expresses an individual’s ability to learn and reason.50 As such, the notion of social intelligence suggests that it can be tested and measured, much like the well-established (IQ) used to measure general cognitive ability. Thorndike’s conceptualization underpinned the early psychometric view of social intelligence and continued to serve as an important reference point for social intelligence investigations throughout the last century.

39 Kaj Bjorkvist, Karin Osterman, and Ari Kaukiainen, “Social Intelligence – Empathy = Aggression?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 5, no. 2 (2000): 192. 40 Edward L. Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Uses,” Harpers Monthly Magazine 140 (1920): 228. 41 Stephen J. Zaccaro, Janelle A. Gilbert, Michelle M. Zazanis, and Marisa Diana, Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence, Technical Report 1024, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, March 1995, 2. 42 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359. 43 Robert J. Schneider, Phillip K. Ackerman, and Ruth Kanfer, “To ‘Act Wisely in Human Relations:’ Exploring the Dimensions of Social Intelligence,” Personality and Individual Differences 21, no. 4 (1996): 469. 44 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 551. 45Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Uses,” 228. 46 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359. 47 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 551. 48 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359. 49 Schneider et al., “To ‘Act Wisely in Human Relations:’ Exploring the Dimensions of Social Intelligence,” 469. 50 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359.

7 Concept Description Abstract intelligence The ability to understand and manage ideas. Mechanical intelligence The ability to understand and manage concrete objects. Social intelligence The ability to understand and manage people. Figure 2. Thorndike's three distinct concepts of intelligence (1920). 5152

While Thorndike’s idea generated significant interest and acceptance among in the 1920s and 1930s, its theoretical development during this time remained limited. One reason for this was that Thorndike did not build, or even attempt to build, a comprehensive theory of social intelligence.53 Instead, he proposed social intelligence as a means to demonstrate that intelligence could reveal itself in a variety of ways.54 In line with its cursory early theoretical development, social intelligence was initially conceived as a single concept—one that focused solely on relations with others as opposed to incorporating about oneself in the equation (which came in later conceptualizations).55 Furthermore, Thorndike’s conceptualization of social intelligence required that it be validated (through tests) in realistic social situations (that is, in contexts in which social intelligence is actually manifest instead of in laboratory settings).56 However, early investigators often approached social intelligence as they did traditional intelligence, which was based on tests consisting of abstract, decontextualized items (decidedly asocial in nature).57 As a result, early attempts to more clearly define its bounds were largely unsuccessful.58 Unsatisfactory operationalization of social intelligence during this early period led Thorndike to regret,

Convenient tests of social intelligence are hard to devise… Social intelligence shows itself abundantly in the nursery, on the playground, in barracks and factories and salesrooms, but it eludes the formal standardized conditions of the testing laboratory.59

51 Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Uses,” 228. 52 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359. 53 Filip Lievens and David Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” in Handbook of Employee Selection, edited by J.L. Farr, N.T. Tippins, L. Jones, and T. Nancy (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, 2010): 342. 54 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 342. 55 Kerri A. Crowne, “The Relationships Among Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence,” Organizational Management Journal 6 (2009): 149. 56 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 198. 57 Ibid. 58 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 551. 59 Edward L. Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Use,” Harpers Magazine 140 (1920): 231.

8 Waning Interest (1950-1980): “Social intelligence is just general intelligence applied to social situations”

Following the initial enthusiasm about social intelligence after Thorndike first introduced the term, serious research on the topic soon faded.60,61 Much of this was due to scholars’ inability to properly distinguish social intelligence from academic (verbal) intelligence, which in turn was at least partially due to the troublesome fact that they had largely been measured in the same manner—namely, paper-and-pencil .62 Neisser (1976) later suggested that the fundamental differences between the two types of intelligence, and therefore the need to measure them with distinct instruments, was because academic intelligence was generally used to solve academic (abstract) problems while social intelligence was used to solve practical, everyday problems.63 Figure 3 describes some of the key differences between academic and practical problems. These differences need to be accounted for when attempting to measure respective intelligences that function to solve those problems. Also (temporarily) driving interest away from social intelligence was the transformation of fundamental approaches to that emerged in the middle of the century, with which social intelligence fell out favor (this is discussed in further detail in the next section).64

Academic (cognitive) problems Practical (everyday) problems § Formulated by others. § Unformulated or in need of reformulation. § Well defined. § Lacking in information necessary for solution(s). § Complete in the information they § Multiple “correct” solutions, with risks and provide. benefits for each. § Only one correct answer. § Multiple methods to determine solution. § Only one method of obtaining the § Relevant to very specific social context. correct answer. § Decontextualized (separate from § Of personal interest. ordinary experience). § Of little or no intrinsic value. § Related to everyday experience. § Typically found in school and IQ tests Figure 3. Generalized differences between academic and practical problems.65

60 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 551-552. 61 Edward H. Taylor and Jean Lud Cadet, “Social Intelligence, A Neurological System?” Psychological Reports 64 (1989): 424. 62 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 342. 63 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 137. 64 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 552. 65 Adapted from Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 137-138.

9

Consistent shortcomings central to social intelligence research had far-reaching implications for interest in the concept and acceptance of its viability. For instance, Spearman’s model of ‘g’—the first widely accepted factor of general intelligence that informed the development of IQ tests—afforded no special place for social intelligence.66 Furthermore, one of the fundamental models of intelligence of the time, developed by Louis Leon Thurstone, excluded social intelligence in its list of primary mental abilities.67 Influential psychologists also dismissed social intelligence more directly. One of the pioneers of the IQ test, David Wechsler, concluded that, “social intelligence is just general intelligence applied to social situations.”68 Furthermore, Lee Cronbach, a leading mid-century educational psychologist known for his contributions to and measurement, concluded in 1960 that despite “fifty years of intermittent investigation… social intelligence remains undefined and unmeasured... Enough attempts were made to indicate that this line of approach is fruitless.”69 Thus, shifting research trends, inadequate operationalization, and damning assessments by leading scholars ensured that social intelligence lost credibility as a research subject for several decades.

Transformation of Psychology Research Perspectives and Interests (1950s and 1960s): The “New Look” Movement

Psychology research in the 1950s and 1960s established and explored new perspectives about human behavior. At the time, this research contributed to divert attention away from social intelligence. However, over the decades that followed, interest in new insight into human behavior and intelligence generated by the mid-century “new look” movement profoundly influenced later investigations of social intelligence.

At the core of any conceptualization of social intelligence is an appreciation that people are conscious and deliberate creatures.70 With this perspective, it is logical to conclude that individuals’ behavior can best be understood as a product of how they interpret the world around them, engage with others, and pursue outcomes that they perceive best suit their interests.71 Expounding upon the earlier work of psychologist , which, in simplified terms, stated that human behavior is a function of the person and their environment (B=f(P+E)), mid-century psychology scholars began investigating

66 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 360. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 359. 69 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 552. 70 Sabrina Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” in The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, edited by Reuven Bar-On and James D.A. Parker (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000): 3. 71 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 3.

10 contextualized and subjective interpretations of experience and behavior in order to better understand it, predict it and improve it.72,73

Zirkel ascribes five key components to this perspective of human behavior: (1) behavior is purposive and strategic, (2) people are active, (3) behavior is social and contextualized, (4) behavior is developmental, and (5) people are creative in their efforts to adapt to their circumstances.74 While often implicit, these assumptions about human behavior underpin most models of social intelligence. They are each presented in further detail in Figure 4.

Component Description • Human behavior is: Behavior is o Rational to the actor but may not appear so to the outside observer. purposive and o “Oriented toward the achievement of some purpose or goal.”75 strategic • Understanding human behavior therefore requires an appreciation of what individuals are trying to accomplish through their actions. • Individuals are not passive victims of circumstance in their lives. Individuals are active • Individuals are active participants who continually interpret and assess opportunities and risks to exert control over their situations. Behavior is • All behavior occurs within a specific cultural context in which all actions and social and responses carry socially-defined value and implication. contextualized • Individuals operate in a social framework that defines appropriate behaviors and goals based on a person’s stage in the life cycle. Behavior is o That is, a six year old will have exhibit fundamentally different behavior developmental and express fundamentally different goals than an 30 year old based purely upon their age. • People are creative and imaginative in adapting to new or changing circumstances Individuals are • People transform their understanding of their surroundings and adapt meaning creative in accordingly adapting • Highlights the importance of cognition, a key component of the social intelligence perspective Figure 4. Zirkel's core assumptions about human behavior.76

72 Yuichi Shoda, “Individual Difference in : Understanding Situations to Understand People, Understanding People to Understand Situations,” in The Sage Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology, edited by Carole Sansone, Carolyn C. Morf, and A.T. Panter (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004): 119. 73 For more information about Lewin’s equation please refer to: Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force, Person-Organization Fit and Mission Command: Why Developing a Mission Command Subset of Leadership Attributes Can Facilitate the Army-wide Implementation of the Mission Command Philosophy, (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Mission Command Center of Excellence, September 2015): http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/HDCDTF_WhitePaper_PersonOrganizationFit_and _MissionCommand_FINAL_2015_09.pdf 74 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 3. 75 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 4. 76 Ibid.

11

The basis of this understanding of human behavior, Zirkel argues, has its intellectual roots in the “new look” movement of psychology in the 1950s and 1960s.77 During this time psychologists such as George Kelly, Julian Rotter, , and ushered in a new perspective in psychology that emphasized examining individuals’ interpretations of their own situations in order to understand subsequent responsive behaviors.78,79,80 This was in contrast to previous approaches that primarily took into account external (e.g. observer) interpretations of stimuli and response selection by individuals. This approach provided a fresh perspective concerning a variety of dimensions of human behavior that are pertinent to social intelligence. For instance, Kelly’s (1955) model of personality emphasized the importance of how an individual interprets the world around them, which in turn determines behavior.81,82,83,84 Rotter (1966) focused on the opportunities that individuals perceive in their own circumstances—not the opportunities that others may perceive from an external point of view.85,86 Finally, Rogers (1961) highlighted the capacity of individuals to adapt their behavior to changing or entirely novel environments—social or otherwise.87,88 This approach to human behavior shifted scholars’ attention away from trying to identify what behavior people engage in for specific situations and toward uncovering what goal or effect people are trying to achieve with that behavior. In short, behavior was no longer to be examined in isolation of personal interpretation and experience. Social intelligence is very much situated within this perspective, accepting that people are creative and adaptive in their social engagements and place particular emphasis on people’s subjective interpretations of situations to help guide them to subjectively

77 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 4. 78 Ibid. 79 Nancy Cantor and John F. Kihlstrom, “Social Intelligence: The Cognitive Basis of Personality,” in Self, Situations, and Social Behavior: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, edited by Phillip Shaver (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985): 15. 80 Shoda, “Individual Difference in Social Psychology,” 119. 81 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 4-5. 82 George A. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs (New York: Norton, 1955). 83 Along the same idea as Kelly’s interests in personality and interpretation, Bruner and Goodman (1947) conducted a study in which a group of children were asked to estimate the size of coins. They were given a device—similar to a flashlight—that produced a circle of light. The researchers asked the children to use the device to represent the size of a variety of coins, making the circle of light bigger or smaller for each coin. It turned out that children from poorer backgrounds consistently overestimated the size of the coins, relative to the children from wealthier backgrounds. This reveals the inherently subjective nature of perception—that it is based on memory and experience, which of course differs for everyone. 84 Jerome S. Bruner and Cecil C. Goodman, “Value and Need as Organizing Factors in Perception,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 42, no. 1 (1947): 33-44. 85 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 5. 86 Julian B. Rotter, “ 1966 "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs 80, no. 1 (1966). 87 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 5. 88 Carl A. Rogers 1961 On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1961).

12 suitable or desirable ends. Key differences between psychology research before and after the “new look” movement are highlighted in Figure 5.

• Interested in identifying and understanding specific human behavior. • Sees behavior as an end in and of itself. Before the “new look” movement • Often assessed from an objective or external perspective. • Essentially asks, “What do I, the observer and scholar, see is possible for this person in these circumstances, and how can that help me understand them?”

• Interested in identifying and understanding people’s goals, which in turn drive behavior. • See behavior as a means to individual goals—focused on the effect a behavior is designed to achieve. After the “new look” movement • Assessed from the perspective of the individual who is engaging in the behavior in question. • Essentially asks, “What does the individual see as possible for himself or herself in this situation, and how can that help me to understand them?” Figure 5. Generalized perspectives in psychology on human behavior, before and after the "new look" movement of the 1960s.89

The theorizations of human behavior that emerged in mid-century behavioral research provide the intellectual context in which social intelligence developed. Although the term social intelligence emerged prior to this transformation, the substance of its intellectual heritage remains firmly rooted in the theorizations of human behavior detailed here—revealing the important subjective interpretations of meaning and experience that influence and inform human behavior, including behavior specific to social situations.

The Structure of Intellect Model (1960s)

One notable exception to the falling out of favor that social intelligence research experienced in the 1950s and 1960s was the work of Guilford and his colleagues to more rigorously study social intelligence.90 They conceptualized social intelligence as “the ability to cognize or understand the , feelings or intentions of other people as they are expressed in behavior.”91 With this in mind, Guilford developed the “structure of intellect model” as a frame of reference for a variety of intellectual abilities, including social intelligence.92 The structure of intellect model proposes that human intelligence is

89 Zirkel, “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior,” 5. 90 Taylor and Cadet “Social Intelligence, A Neurological System?” 424. 91 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 552. 92 J.P. Guilford, The Nature of Human Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967): 65.

13 made up of 150 components.93 Of these, Guilford identified 30 abilities within the domain of “behavioral operations” that represent social intelligence.94,95,96 Then, using these 30 facets of social intelligence predicted by the structure of intellect model, Guilford defined two domains of social intelligence. One consisted of understanding the behaviors of other people (“cognition of behavior content”), while the other consisted of coping with the behavior of other people (“divergent production of behavioral content”).97 Each domain consisted of six abilities, the components of which are detailed in Figure 6 below.

Understanding behaviors of other (“Cognition of behavior content”) Cognitive ability Definition Cognition of behavioral units The ability to identify the internal mental states of individuals. The ability to group other people’s mental states on the basis of Cognition of behavioral classes similarity. The ability to interpret meaningful connections among behavioral Cognition of behavioral relations acts. Cognition of behavioral systems The ability to interpret sequences of social behavior. Cognition of behavioral The ability to respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social transformations behavior Cognition of behavioral The ability to predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation. implications Coping with behaviors of others (“Divergent production of behavioral content”) Cognitive ability Definition Divergent production of The ability to engage in behavioral acts that communicate mental behavioral units states. Divergent production of The ability to create recognizable categories of behavioral acts behavioral classes Divergent production of The ability to perform an act that has a bearing on what another behavioral relations person is doing. Divergent production of The ability to maintain a sequence of interactions with another behavioral systems person. Divergent production of The ability to alter an expression or a sequence of expressions. behavioral transformations Divergent production of The ability to predict many possible outcomes of a setting. behavioral implications Figure 6. Component abilities of the two domains of social intelligence developed by Guilford and colleagues, based on Guilford's Structure of Intellect model of human intelligence.98

93 Robert J. Sternberg, “A Broad View of Intelligence: The Theory of Successful Intelligence,” Consulting Pyschology Journal: Practice and Research (Summer 2003): 142. 94 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 196. 95 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 361. 96 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 552. 97 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 361. 98 Ibid., 361-362.

14

Guilford theorized that these behavioral factors were distinct from standard IQ measurements.99 The tests they conducted at the time validated their hypothesis that these social abilities were independent of abstract cognitive abilities.100 However, later studies found substantial overlap between academic intelligence (IQ) and the supposed social intelligence scores on the Guilford tests.101,102 The failure of these findings to hold up over time might be attributed to:

(1) Guilford’s teams using only one instrument at a time to test the validity of their claims (as opposed to a multi-method approach), (2) Subjective analysis of the data that they relied upon, and (3) The format of their tests too closely resembling traditional IQ tests (for instance, most of their measurements were conducted in a paper-and-pencil format instead of simulating real-world scenarios, where most social behavior occurs).103

Nevertheless, Guilford’s work in the field was remarkable for its sophisticated effort to more rigorously mark the bounds of social intelligence and distinguish it from academic intelligence. While their operationalization of social intelligence ultimately proved more problematic than they initially anticipated, it provided an important waypoint in the social intelligence research landscape.

Renewed Interest and Contemporary Research (1980-present)

The late 1970s and early 1980s marked resurgent interest in social intelligence, which has largely been maintained over the last three decades.104 Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts trace this social intelligence renaissance to two major factors. First, the “prevailing zeitgeist” of psychological research of the time placed particular interest in implicit theories of intelligence.105 This led more scholars to investigate “alternative” (read: intuitive) concepts of intelligence.106 Second, two theories proposing a “systems” approach to intelligence—Gardner’s model of multiple intelligences and Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence—that were developed in the early 1980s each contained components that closely resembled social intelligence, sparking further investigation into the concept. These two developments led over time to increasingly sophisticated

99 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 361. 100 Ibid. 101 Taylor and Cadet “Social Intelligence, A Neurological System?” 424. 102 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 361. 103 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 552. 104 Ibid., 555. 105 Ibid. 106 Robert J. Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3, no. 11 (1999): 439.

15 perspectives of social intelligence, including suggestions that it was multidimensional and distinguishing between psychometric views of social intelligence and personality views of social intelligence. Each of these developments is discussed below.

Implicit Theories of Intelligence

In short, implicit theories of intelligence consider people’s personal and collective conceptions of intelligence (Figure 7). This recalls claims that social intelligence—in this case, a kind of “street smarts”—makes intuitive sense to people, even if they don’t have data to support the notion. One scholar described this phenomenon as “folk conceptions” of wisdom.107 The goal of this line of research, therefore, is not to identify or describe psychometrically valid accounts of intelligence, but rather to uncover people’s beliefs and perceptions about wisdom in others (this in part reflects the goals of mid-century psychology research trends discussed on pages 10-13 above, which placed added emphasis on individual perceptions of goals in order to better understand behavior). Clayton conducted important early studies on the topic from 1975-1980, revealing that people described others who they considered wise as “experienced,” “pragmatic,” “understanding,” and “knowledgeable.”108 Perhaps surprisingly, Sternberg found that data from studies of implicit theories are no worse a match for general factors of intelligence (IQ) than are performance-based data.109 While some may dismiss these investigations as dealing only with perceptions of intelligence rather than intelligence itself, it is important to remember that human behavior (and therefore social intelligence) does not exist in a vacuum. Instead, it is social and contextualized.110 Therefore perceptions of individual intelligence (whether backed up by data or not) are a crucial component of social behavior.

Implicit theories of intelligence Explicit theories of intelligence § Concerned with “folk” accounts of intelligence that § Formal theoretical frameworks that are more qualitative in nature. account of wisdom/intelligence. § Provide an account of people’s beliefs about § Largely concerned with accounts of intelligence, even though they might not be intelligence that can be measured and empirically valid. tested quantitatively (psychometric). § Focused on people’s impressions or perceptions of § “Psychologically true.” others’ intelligence. § Intuitive notions of wisdom. Figure 7. Implicit vs. explicit theories of intelligence.111

107 Robert J. Sternberg, “WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 2, no. 4 (2003): 394. 108 Ibid. 109 Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” 439 110 Robert J. Sternberg, “Intelligence, Wisdom and ,” Educational Psychologist 21, no. 3 (1986): 185 111 Robert J. Sternberg, “WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 2, no. 4 (2003): 394.

16

Intelligence as a System

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

One of the first, and certainly among the most influential, theories to challenge traditional IQ-based views of intelligence was ’s theory of multiple intelligences, which was first proposed in his book Frames of Mind in 1983.112,113,114,115 Gardner proposed that intelligence was not a single cognitive dimension, but rather consisted of seven independent intelligences.116,117,118 These seven intelligences are listed and described in Figure 8.119 While Gardner proposed that all seven intelligences are independent of each other, associated with distinct neurological systems, and cognitive in nature, two that he identified are explicitly personal and social in nature: interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence.120,121 Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand others and act on that understanding.122,123 Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand oneself.124,125 Gardner’s concept of interpersonal intelligence led to theorizing about social intelligence as an ability to solve everyday problems and gave the notion of social intelligence as distinct from academic intelligence further energy.126 Gardner’s notion that intelligence is intended to solve everyday problems recalls the transformation of psychological perspectives in the 1950s and 1960s, while his two-part conceptualization of social intelligence (interpersonal and intrapersonal) draws on Guilford’s model— discussed on 13-15. Intrapersonal intelligence led to research on emotional intelligence.127 Scholars in both camps often

112 Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: Basic Books, 1983). 113 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 138. 114 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 364. 115 Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” 438. 116 Ibid., 439. 117 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 364. 118 Karl Albrecht, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006): 8. 119 In years following the initial publication of his theory, Gardner suggested that there may be additional intelligences to consider adding to his original list of seven. These include naturalistic intelligence, moral intelligence, and existential/spiritual intelligence. 120 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 364-365. 121 Crowne, “The Relationships Among Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence,” 149. 122 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 364. 123 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 138. 124 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 364. 125 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 138. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid.

17 argue that interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence are critical for their respective interests (social intelligence and emotional intelligence).

Category Intelligence Description • The ability to understand spoken and written language, and the ability to speak and write Linguistic intelligence effectively. • The ability to use written and spoken Academic language to achieve goals. • The ability to understand logic, reasoning, abstractions, causal systems, and Logical-mathematical intelligence numbering. • Closely linked to fluid intelligence. • The ability to be sensitive to sounds, rhythm, Musical intelligence pitch, tone, timbre, music, and so forth. • The ability to control one’s physical body. Arts Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence • Athletes, dancers, actors, soldiers, craftsmen exhibit high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. • The ability to visualize space effectively and Spatial intelligence accurately in one’s mind. • Sensitivity to others’. Interpersonal intelligence • The ability to communicate effectively and empathize with others. • The ability to effectively understand one’s Personal own emotions, strengths, and weaknesses. Intrapersonal intelligence • The ability to anticipate one’s own reactions and emotions. • Self-awareness and self-understanding. Figure 8. Summary of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.128

Gardner’s theory contributed enormously to expanding people’s ideas about the range of possible domains of intelligence—particularly among educators who in some cases adopted curricula according to the various intelligences.129 However, the theory is based on questionable . For instance, the literature review the initial theory is based upon was selective and Gardner’s analysis of his seven intelligences was more “impressionistic” than objectively reasoned.130 There is yet to emerge a single empirical study that supports or even tests his theory as a whole, despite it being cited widely.131

128 Gardner, Frames of Mind, 1983. 129 Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” 439. 130 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 365. 131 Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” 439.

18 Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Robert J. Sternberg is another key figure who was an influential advocate for multiple conceptualizations of intelligence during this time.132 His triarchic theory of intelligence, also known as the model of successful intelligence, consists of three aspects of intelligence: analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence (Figure 9). Sternberg approaches human intelligence in terms of cognitive energy directed towards solving real-world problems.133 The practical intelligence component of his model explicitly includes social intelligence, as it is necessary in order to succeed in real-world situations and solve social problems. Sternberg’s theory is very much rooted in theories of implicit intelligence. As such, it becomes clearer that social intelligence is not just an academic construct but also a social one.134 As such, he posited that while the neural processes of human intelligence are universal, the manifestation of behavior based on those processes is contextually bound.135 For instance, behavior that might be considered intelligent in one situation or culture may not be viewed as such under different circumstances.136,137 As such, any measurement or test of intelligence, and particularly of practical intelligence or social intelligence, is dependent on context.138 This once again speaks to the difficulty of developing appropriate paper- and-pencil tests that can effectively simulate the social problems in which the abilities that determine social intelligence necessarily are employed. With these methodological limitations in mind, Sternberg and colleagues found evidence that cognitive aspects of social intelligence (specifically the ability to decode nonverbal information) were distinguishable from academic intelligence.139

132 John Antonakis, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Marie T. Dasborough, “Does Leadership Need Emotional Intelligence,” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009): 252. 133 Larry T. Brown and Randall G. Anthony, “Continuing The Search for Social Intelligence,” Personality and Individual Differences 11, no. 5 (1990): 469 134 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 368. 135 Sternberg, “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance,” 439. 136 Ibid. 137 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 368. 138 Ibid. 139 Matthews et al. “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 556.

19 Component Description • The traditional notion of intelligence. • Includes abstract thinking, logical reasoning, math skills, and Analytical intelligence verbal skills. • Also known as “componential intelligence”. • Generates new ideas. Creative intelligence • The ability to negotiate novel situations. • Also known as “experiential intelligence”. • A kind of “street smarts”. • The ability to apply knowledge to the real world. Practical intelligence • The ability to shape one’s environment. • Also known as “contextual intelligence”. Figure 9. Components of Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence, also known as the "successful intelligence" model. Practical intelligence overlaps considerably with common understandings of social intelligence.

Multidimensional Conceptualizations of Social Intelligence

Another advancement in the 1980s and 1990s that led to further interest and optimism in the field was the investigation of social intelligence as a multidimensional construct. Multidimensional conceptualizations of social intelligence date back to the very origin of the term, when Thorndike defined it as “the ability to understand and manage men and women… to act wisely in human relations.”140 This suggests a cognitive dimension (“to understand”) and a behavioral one (“to manage”, “to act”).141 However, attempts to operationalize the term over the following decades typically mirrored the unitary structure of traditional IQ tests. This changed in the 1980s and 1990s as scholars moved beyond viewing social intelligence as a monolithic concept and began hypothesizing a variety of dimensions that comprise it.

Ford and Tisak (1983) conducted one of the important early studies in this regard.142 They examined social intelligence not just as a cognitive ability but one whose ultimate purpose was for behavioral effectiveness.143,144,145 With this, they defined social intelligence as “one’s ability to accomplish relevant objectives in specific social settings.”146 Through a multidimensional approach to social intelligence, using four measures of academic intelligence and six measures of social intelligence, Ford and

140 Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Uses,” 228. 141 Jong-Eun Lee, Chau-Ming T. Wong, Jeanne D. Day, Scott E. Maxwell, Pamela Thorp, “Social and Academic Intelligences: A Multitrait-Multimethod Study of their Crystallized and Fluid Characteristics,” Personality and Individual Differences 29 (2000): 550. 142 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 343. 143 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 197. 144 Taylor and Cadet “Social Intelligence, A Neurological System?” 425. 145 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 555. 146 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 197.

20 Tisak were able to successfully distinguish the two.147,148,149 They demonstrated that ratings of social competence predicted observed social behavior better than did measures of academic intelligence.150 Subsequent critiques of Ford and Tisak’s study, however, argued that their findings too heavily relied on self-reported social skills— which, critics argue, are inadequate in and of themselves to provide psychologically- meaningful evidence. Furthermore, the evidence they gathered for social intelligence and academic intelligence were conducted through different methods, which confused the findings further.151

A few years later Marlowe (1986) postulated the multidimensionality of social intelligence as well. He defined the concept as “the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of persons, including oneself, in interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding.”152 His model of social intelligence consisted of four domains: social interest (one’s desired interest in the welfare of others), social self-efficacy, empathy skills (the ability to cognitively and affectively understand another), and social performance (observable social behaviors).153,154 Analysis of these domains yielded five factors that correlate strongly to social intelligence: prosocial attitude, social skills, empathy skills, emotionality, and social anxiety.155 These factors were shown to be distinct from academic intelligence, providing clear evidence of the multidimensionality of social intelligence. However, similar to critiques of the study conducted by Ford and Tisak, some noted that Marlowe’s method consisted entirely of self-report measures.156 These methodological shortcomings left social intelligence vulnerable to accusations that the concept lacked “empirical coherency”, as well as the familiar refrain that it could not be satisfactorily distinguished from academic intelligence.157

147 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 343. 148 Susanne Weis and Heinz-Martin Süß, “Social Intelligence—A Review and Critical Discussion of Measurement Concepts,” In Emotional Intelligence: An International Handbook, edited by Ralf Schulze and Richard D. Roberts (Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2005): 211. 149 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 196. 150 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 555. 151 Lee et al., “Social and Academic Intelligences,” 540. 152 Herbert A. Marlowe, Jr. “Social Intelligence: Evidence for Multidimensionality and Construct Independence,” Journal of 78, no. 1 (1986): 52 153 Ibid., 53-54. 154 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 141. 155 Marlowe, “Social Intelligence,” 56. 156 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 556. 157 Lee et al., “Social and Academic Intelligences,” 540.

21 § Theorized two dimensions of social intelligence: o Social perception/awareness/knowledge (cognition); o Social performance (action/behavior). § Implemented more robust, sophisticated attempts to conceptualize and operationalize social intelligence and distinguish it from academic intelligence. § Findings still vulnerable to methodological and theoretical shortcomings: o Early studies relied largely on self-report measures; o Leading to accusations of unsound empirical grounding of the concept. Figure 10. Summary of multidimensional social intelligence research.

Multitrait-Multimethod Approaches to Social Intelligence

To address this problem, scholars investigating social intelligence began using multitrait- mulitmethod study designs to better understand its structure and more satisfactorily and empirically distinguish it from academic intelligence.158 Multitrait-multimethod approaches provide a more rigorous method of examining construct validity of a concept by, as its name suggests, evaluating multiple traits that comprise it and doing so by using multiple methods in order to mitigate the variance caused by any single method (such as those caused by self-report, as we have discussed). Multitrait- multimethod studies of social intelligence assess the verbal and nonverbal performance measures of social intelligence and incorporate a range of methods, including self- and other- (peer, for instance) report and confirmatory factor analysis.159,160 Through this approach, a number of scholars were able to formulate an empirically-defensible structural model of social intelligence.161

A number of key studies used this approach to advance understanding of social intelligence. First, Wong and colleagues (1995) showed that (1) cognitive and behavioral aspects of social intelligence could in fact be distinguished from academic intelligence and (2) several cognitive aspects of social intelligence could be distinguished from one another (e.g. social insight, social perception, social knowledge).162,163,164 Second, Jones and Day (1997) established the distinction between fluid and crystallized social intelligence.165 In terms of general intelligence, fluid intelligence is the ability to solve novel problems without any prior knowledge of the problem from experience. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use learned knowledge, skills and experience,

158 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 212. 159 Ibid. 160 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 557. 161 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 212. 162 Chau-Ming T. Wong, Jeanne D. Day, Scott E. Maxwell, and Naomi M. Meara, “A Multitrait-Multimethod Study of Academic and Social Intelligence in College Students,” Journal of Educational Psychology 87, no. 1 (1995): 117. 163 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 213. 164 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 557. 165 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 343.

22 largely manifested in vocabulary and general knowledge. Both are factors of general intelligence. Jones and Day found that fluid social intelligence is demonstrated through social-—the ability to flexibly apply social knowledge in novel situations.166 On the other hand, they found that crystallized social intelligence comprised social knowledge (such as social etiquette and knowledge about a variety of social interactions and events).167 Finally, Lee and colleagues (2000) operationalized the distinction between fluid and crystallized social intelligence.168,169 They found that fluid social intelligence equated to social inference, while crystallized social intelligence equated to social knowledge. The authors defined social inference as “the ability to read perceptual cues and to make accurate inferences about others' internal states, , etc.” and social knowledge as “knowledge of social etiquette.”170 These trait-factors of social intelligence were discriminable from each and from fluid and crystallized forms of academic intelligence.

As one might expect from the history of social intelligence research that we have reviewed thus far, there remain shortcomings to the multitrait-multimethod studies despite their relatively robust findings. While each of these studies revealed empirically sound traits that demonstrated the multidimensionality of their respective frameworks of social intelligence, as well as their discrimination from academic intelligence, the specific findings varied considerably between the studies for the same traits. As such, it remains unclear what effect self- and other- report data has on the trait-structure of social intelligence and its discriminability from general intelligence.171

§ Multitrait-multimethod studies use multiple methods to evaluate multiple traits that are hypothesized to comprise social intelligence. § The approach assumes the multidimensional nature of social intelligence and helps mitigate the variance caused by any single method used to evaluate social intelligence. § Established more empirically-defensible structural model of social intelligence. § Several studies successfully distinguished social intelligence from academic intelligence. § Established distinction between fluid and crystallized social intelligence. § Findings of multitrait-multimethod studies vary widely: o Leaves questions about the relationships between method and social intelligence traits unanswered. Figure 11. Summary of findings about social intelligence discovered through multitrait-multimethod study designs.

166 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 343. 167 Ibid. 168 Lee et al., “Social and Academic Intelligences,” 550. 169 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 214 170 Lee et al., “Social and Academic Intelligences,” 540-541. 171 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 214.

23 Personality View of Social Intelligence

The final movement in recent social intelligence research literature of note is the view that social intelligence forms the cognitive basis of personality. The personality view of social intelligence diverges from the majority of models and approaches to social intelligence that we have reviewed thus far, which can be considered psychometric approaches to social intelligence.172 The psychometric view evaluates social intelligence as a trait or a collection of traits that can be compared and ranked on a dimension (such as social perception, social knowledge, and so forth) from high to low. Alternatively, in the personality view, social intelligence characterizes the cognitive processes that distinguish individual approaches to solving real-world, everyday problems.173 This conforms to the psychological approach established in the middle of the 20th century that transformed psychological research perspectives. Therefore, this approach considers social intelligence as the knowledge of social problems.174 As such, individual differences in social behavior is the product of individual differences in knowledge. This is mediated by perception, memory, reasoning, and problem solving rather than innate reflexes and conditioned responses suggested by psychometric perspectives of social intelligence. In other words, the psychometric view is concerned with how much social intelligence an individual possesses while the personality view is concerned with what kind of social intelligence a person has.175 For the latter approach, attunement and flexibility are the critical components of personality and intelligence upon which effective social intelligence relies. Attunement suggests one can anticipate the consequences of one’s actions and how that might impact their goals. In turn, flexibility allows one to be flexible to identify what tasks to pursue and how to pursue them in order to achieve their goals.176

Summary of Contemporary Social Intelligence Research

The preceding review is intended to provide important context for social intelligence— both historical and theoretical. While demonstrating a variety of developments concerning its conceptualization and operationalization, the review also shows that its status as a coherent, empirically verified construct remains mixed. One review of the field summarizes four possibilities about social intelligence that emerge from almost a century of research: 177

172 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 368. 173 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 144. 174 Ibid. 175 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 368. 176 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 144. 177 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 557.

24 (1) Social intelligence is an empirically coherent domain of intelligence, separate from traditional academic intelligence. (2) Social intelligence is nothing but a proxy for general, academic intelligence applied to social situations. (3) Social intelligence is closely linked to personality, making it a misnomer to call it a form of intelligence. (4) Since implicit theories strongly indicate social intelligence to be a form of cognitive ability then it must similarly be included in explicit theories. The impetus is on the research community to give it greater scope.

In the end, most empirical studies of social intelligence focus on a single, very specific aspect of social intelligence.178 These studies on social intelligence can be placed into two general categories: 179

(1) Those that stress social cognitive skills. (2) Those that stress social-behavioral skills.

Both provide important insight and rigor to social intelligence research, but fail to convincingly provide a coherent theoretical framework of social intelligence that accounts for methodological variance and fail to identify a clear class of empirically sound traits or factors.180

This equivocal state of affairs is not to suggest that efforts to identify, assess or develop social intelligence will be fruitless. It does, however, make those efforts more challenging. There are no off-the-shelf conceptualizations or measurement tools that are so sound to escape criticism. As such, when identifying social intelligence and considering methods to measure it and develop it for a specific purpose, it is important to understand the full scope of established social intelligence research. This includes important refrains that attempts to precisely and consistently identify what the concept actually consists of remain inconclusive. While it may be impossible to reconcile all of social intelligence’s conceptual and methodological shortcomings, one step to mitigating them is to narrow down its scope and examine social intelligence within a specific social or organizational context with clear goals or outcomes of social intelligence in mind. One such field in which social intelligence has drawn a lot of attention is its role in leadership. This has obvious overlap with the Army’s interests. A brief discussion of the role of social intelligence in leadership is below, followed by an examination of social intelligence research and application in the Army.

178 Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 214. 179 Matthews et al., “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence,” 559. 180 Ibid.

25 Social Intelligence and Leadership

Conceptualizations of social intelligence within leadership research draw heavily from the psychology literature on the subject and have been presented in a number of ways. In their study linking the two fields, Zaccaro et al. (1991) defined social intelligence as the “ability to understand the leadership situation, including political processes and social relationships, and it also includes the ability to select an appropriate response and vary one’s behavior in response to changing conditions.”181 In a study of multiple intelligences and transformational leadership, Hoffman and Frost (2006) defined social intelligence more simply, as the “ability to read and adapt to diverse social situations.”182 Conceptualizations of social intelligence in the leadership field largely take into account the cognitive and behavioral aspects of social intelligence. Furthermore, they tend to view social intelligence as a trait, competency or skill that contributes to effective leadership—conforming to the psychometric view of social intelligence that stresses quantitative evaluations of social intelligence. Like social intelligence research in general, that which focuses on its role in leadership continues to evolve. The research, however, reveals a few general observations.

First, leadership is inherently social.183,184 Some scholars suggest that in order to fully understand leadership, researchers and practitioners must investigate the social dynamics that are inherently embedded in leadership functions.185 As such, research on social intelligence is a critical component of leader effectiveness because it marries the individual (person) and the contextual (organizational/social) aspects of leadership.186,187 This recalls the argument described earlier that claims that all human behavior is socially-bound.

Second, scholars have identified three general “clusters” of competencies that differentiate effective performers and leaders in organizational contexts.188 These comprise (1) cognitive intelligence, (2) emotional intelligence, and (3) social

181 Cited in Gary Yukl and Rubina Mahsud, “Why Flexible and Adaptive Leadership is Essential,” Journal: Practice and Research 62, no. 2 (2010): 88. 182 Brian J. Hoffman and Brian C. Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders: An Empirical Examination,” International Journal of Manpower 27, no. 1 (2006): 39. 183 Lisa M. Kobe, Roni Reiter-Palmon, and Jon D. Rickers, “Self-Reported Leadership Experiences in Relation to Inventoried Social and Emotional Intelligence,” Psychology Faculty Publications, Paper 66 (2001): 3. 184 Hoffman and Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders,” 39. 185 Kobe et al., “Self-Reported Leadership Experiences in Relation to Inventoried Social and Emotional Intelligence,” 3. 186 Ibid. 187 Joanne C. Marshall-Mies, Edwin A. Fleishman, Jennifer A. Martin, Stephen J. Zaccaro, Wayne A. Baughman, and Michael L. McGee, “Development and Evaluation of Cognitive and Metacognitive Measures for Predicting Leadership Potential,” Leadership Quarterly 11, no. 1 (2000): 137. 188 Richard E. Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” Journal of Management Development 27, no. 1 (2008): 7.

26 intelligence.189 This represents a cognitive-behavioral approach to intelligence, similar to those developed in the more general psychology research discussed earlier. The model provides a general framework of understanding of the role of social intelligence in effective leadership.

In the three-part “cluster” model of intelligence and leadership, intelligence of any kind is defined as:

• Behaviorally observable; • Related to distinct biological and neural-endocrine functioning; • Related to life and job outcomes; • Sufficiently different from other personality constructs that the concept adds value to understanding the human personality and behavior; • The measures of the concept, as a psychological construct, should satisfy the basic criteria for a sound measure, that is show convergent and discriminant validity.190

The model provides a theoretical structure for organizing individual traits and linking them to a theory of effective behavior and job performance.191 Here, a competency is an “underlying characteristic of the person that leads to or causes effective or superior performance.”192 Each of the “intelligence competencies” within this model is defined in Figure 12. Proponents of this model argue that these competencies provide a focal point for the description and study of leadership performance. The model underscores Daniel Goleman’s popular work on emotional intelligence193 and social intelligence,194 and also reflects some of the same principles of Gardner’s multiple intelligences framework.195

189 Richard E. Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” Journal of Management Development 27, no. 1 (2008): 7. 190 Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” 8. 191 Ibid. 192 Richard E. Boyatzis, The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1982) cited in Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” 8. 193 Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1995), 194 Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 2006). 195 Gardner, Frames of Mind, 1983.

27 Intelligence Competency Definition An ability to think or analyze information or situations that leads to or causes Cognitive intelligence effective or superior performance. An ability to recognize, understand, and use emotional information about Emotional intelligence oneself that leads to or causes effective or superior performance. The ability to recognize, understand and use emotional information about Social intelligence others that leads to or causes effective or superior performance. Figure 12. Descriptions of the intelligence competencies that make up the competency-cluster model of intelligence and leadership.196

Bass concurs with the model above, postulating that these competencies should provide a useful framework for exploring the impact of individual differences on the facilitation of transformational leadership behaviors.197,198 More specifically, Bass suggests that the components that make up these intelligences should distinctively relate to the three dimensions of transformation leadership: (1) charisma, (2) intellectual stimulation, (3) individualized consideration.199,200 Frost and Hoffman conducted a study of Bass’s hypothesis and found that it was generally helpful and accurate.201 More specifically, they found partial support for their hypothesis that social intelligence components (measured by the dimensions identified as dominance, social presence, capacity for status, self-acceptance, confrontation, teambuilding skills, leadership skills, and oral skills) were associated with the transformational leadership dimension of charisma.202 Importantly, the study used “assessment center” methodology instead of self-report to arrive at their findings to reinforce the rigor of their conclusions.203,204

Zaccaro’s work on social intelligence and leadership is also important. He conceptualized social intelligence as a problem-solving skill that is critical to successful leadership. Once again, this reminds us of earlier conceptualizations of social intelligence that examined social intelligence as a means to solve social problems. Only here, Zaccaro places those social problems in an organizational-leadership context. He argued that social intelligence possesses two key characteristics: (1) social perceptiveness, and (2) behavioral flexibility. Once again this reflects the historic understanding that social intelligence comprises a cognitive (social perceptiveness) and a behavioral (behavioral flexibility) component. He defines social perceptiveness as a leader’s ability to be aware

196 Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” 8. 197 Bernard M. Bass, “Cognitive Social, and Emotional Intelligence of Transformational Leaders,” in Multiple Intelligences and Leadership, edited by Ronald E. Riggio, Susan E. Murphy, and Francis J. Priozzolo (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2002): 115. 198 Hoffman and Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders,” 38. 199 Bass, “Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Intelligence of Transformational Leaders,” 115 200 Hoffman and Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders,” 38. 201 Ibid., 46. 202 Ibid., 45. 203 Ibid., 40-41. 204 “Assessment center exercises encapsulate real-life managerial settings by requiring candidates to respond to a wide range of work-related issues across diverse situations.”

28 of and sensitive to employee and organizational needs, goals, and problems.205 He defines behavioral flexibility as a leader’s willingness and ability to respond appropriately to different situations.206 Therefore, social intelligence functions as a linkage between these two components and any given leadership situation, empowering a leader to be more effective.207

Similarly, Marshall-Mies et al. conceptualized leadership as a problem-solving domain.208 They argued that social intelligence is therefore useful in that it consists of social judgment skills, such as (1) an awareness of the problem solver’s personal strengths and weaknesses, (2) willingness to learn from mistakes, (3) a capacity to work with conflicting social demands, (4) an awareness of the needs, goals, and demands of other social constituencies, and (5) an awareness of whether a proposed solution is consistent with existing social dynamics.209

A variation of the multiple intelligence approach to effective leadership is a framework that instead consists of social and emotional skills. Riggio and Reichard argue that social and emotional skills underpin all forms of interpersonal communication.210 A theoretical framework based upon this assumption can then be applied to discover leader processes and outcomes.211 The abilities that make up the framework of the emotional and social skills and leadership framework are detailed in Figure 13. They argue that these skills can be targeted for assessment and development and are critical components of leadership.212

Emotional skill Description Examples Ability to communicate nonverbally, Motivating/inspiring Emotional especially when sending emotional followers; conveying positive expressiveness messages. affect and regard. Skill in receiving and interpreting the Understanding followers’ Emotional sensitivity nonverbal, or emotional, expressions needs and feelings; of others. establishing rapport. Regulating inappropriate Regulating nonverbal and emotional emotions; masking or stifling Emotional control displays. the expression of strong emotions.

205 Kobe et al., “Self-Reported Leadership Experiences in Relation to Inventoried Social and Emotional Intelligence,” 3. 206 Ibid. 207 Marshall-Mies et al., “Development and Evaluation of Cognitive and Metacognitive Measures for Predicting Leadership Potential,” 140. 208 Ibid., 139. 209 Ibid., 140. 210 Ronald E. Riggio and Rebecca J. Reichard, “The Emotional and Social Intelligences of Effective Leadership: An Emotional and Social Skill Approach,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23, no. 2 (2008): 169. 211 Riggio and Reichard, “The Emotional and Social Intelligences of Effective Leadership,” 169. 212 Ibid.

29 Social skill Description Examples Ability to communicate verbally and Public speaking; persuasion; Social expressiveness skill in engaging others in social coaching; negotiating. interaction. Verbal listening skills, but also ability Effective, active listening; Social sensitivity to “read” social situations and general regulating and monitoring of knowledge of social rules and norms. social behavior. Being tactful; leader Skill in role-playing and social self- Social control impression management; presentation. social and leader efficacy. Figure 13. The emotional and social skills framework: definitions and examples of leader behavior.213

Leadership research, including the studies cited here, provides strong support—using a variety of contexts, populations, and methods—demonstrating the importance of social intelligence to leadership effectiveness.214 It adheres to the principles of social intelligence established in the more general psychology research on the concept. Specifically, this includes “the ability to understand the leadership situation, including political [organizational] processes and social relationship, and it also includes the ability to select an appropriate response and vary one’s behavior in response to changing conditions.”215

Social Intelligence and the Army

The strong body of empirical evidence linking social intelligence to leadership naturally coincides with the Army’s articulation and focus on a variety of leadership attributes and competencies that it considers critical to organizational success and professional development. This is reflected in leadership (ADRP 6-22) and mission command (ADRP 6-0) doctrine. For instance, the first principle of mission command is to “build cohesive teams through mutual trust.”216 In part, this is accomplished through leadership, which requires effective command presence and command climate, which in turn requires a variety of social skills (for instance, “sincere concern for subordinates’ welfare,” “empathy,” “motivation,” and “communication”) that can be conceptualized through social intelligence frameworks.217 The same can be said of the role of social intelligence for mission command’s goal to “inform and influence audiences.”218

Social intelligence is also a focus of Army-specific research efforts to learn more about the link between Soldier and leader performance and the characteristics or traits that determine that performance, including those related to or synonymous with social

213 Riggio and Reichard, “The Emotional and Social Intelligences of Effective Leadership,” 171-172. 214 Zaccaro et al., “Leader Traits and Attributes,” 116. 215 Yukl and Mahsud, “Why Flexible and Adaptive Leadership is Essential,” 88. 216 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-0: Mission Command, 2-1. 217 Ibid., 2-11 – 2-12 218 Ibid., 3-4.

30 intelligence. For instance, ARI has conducted a number of important and rigorous empirical studies over the last 20 years that attempt to reveal the specific role of social intelligence (and similar concepts) in a variety of Army contexts.219 The University of Military and Foreign Cultural Studies (UFMCS) also maintains a keen interest in social intelligence research. They incorporate it into their applied critical thinking curricula and reach out to key figures in the field to explore avenues for assessment, development, and application in the Army. The Center for Army Leadership (CAL) focuses on traits and attributes relating to social intelligence in a number of their products intended to develop effective Army leadership. Finally, social intelligence has been a topic of interest in key Army periodicals and research reports.220 In all of these instances, it is clear that the Army values the importance of social intelligence as a concept and its role in organizational effectiveness.

Doctrine

As we noted previously, Army doctrine and other official publications often cite the importance of a variety of traits, attributes, skills, characteristics, competencies and so forth to its Soldiers and leaders that very closely resemble or overlap with common conceptualizations of social intelligence. Very rarely, however, do these documents explicitly cite social intelligence. Foremost among these is ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership. This publication identifies Army leadership principles, describes the Army’s view of leadership, outlines the levels of leadership, and describes the attributes and core leader competencies across all levels.221 Within this framework, attributes are understood as the desired internal characteristics of a leader.222,223 Attributes are what

219 For instance, the following will be discussed below: (1) Stephen J. Zaccaro, Janelle A. Gilbert, Michelle M. Zazanis, and Marisa Diana, Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence, Technical Report 1024, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, March 1995; (2) Tara D. Carpenter and Michelle M. Wisecarver, Identifying and Validating a Model of Interpersonal Performance Dimensions, Technical Report 1144, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, March 2004; (3) Robert J. Schneider and Jeff W. Johnson, Direct and Indirect Predictors of Social Competence in United States Army Junior Commissioned Officers, Technical Report 1171, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, November 2005. 220 For instance, (1) Cheryl Paullin, Peter J. Legree, Andrea L. Sinclair, Karen O. Moriarty, Roy C. Campbell, and Robert N. Kilcullen, “Delineating Officer Performance and Its Determinants,” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 259-277; (2) Sean P. McDonald, “Empirically Based Leadership: Integrating the Science of Psychology in Building a Better Leadership Model,” Military Review (January-February 2013): 2-10; (3) Matthew T. Allen, Bethany H. Bynum, Joy T. Oliver, Teresa L. Russell, Mark C. Young, and Nehama E. Babin. “Predicting Leadership Performance and Potential in the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School (OCS).” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 310-326; (4) Ole Boe, Henning Bang, and Fredrik A. Nilsen, “Selecting the Most Relevant Character Strengths for Norwegian Army Officers: An Educational Tool,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015): 801-809. 221 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, v. 222 Ibid., 1-5. 223 Department of the Army, Army Leader Development Strategy: Training, Education, Experience, 2013: 6

31 the Army wants leaders to be and know.224 Competencies are skilled and learnable behaviors the Army expects leaders to have and use.225 Competencies are what the Army wants leaders to do.226 This system of attributes and competencies lead to trust between leader and follower, forming the bedrock of mission command.227 The attributes and competencies described in ADRP 6-22 are summarized in the Leadership Requirements Model, shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. The Army Leadership Requirements Model.228

All of the attributes highlighted in this model that directly relate to social intelligence in some way.229 Critical competencies outlined in Figure 14 that resemble dimensions of social intelligence discussed in the academic literature include lead and develop.230 Descriptions of relevant attributes and competencies from the Leadership Requirements Model are summarized in Figure 15. The model clearly demonstrates the Army’s appreciation for skills related to social intelligence, without explicitly citing the concept.

224 Department of the Army, Army Leader Development Strategy: Training, Education, Experience, 2013: 6 225 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, 1-5 – 1-6. 226 Department of the Army, Army Leader Development Strategy: Training, Education, Experience, 2013: 6 227 Ibid. 228 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, 1-5. 229 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography, 6. 230 Ibid.

32 Attributes Function/ Attribute Description Manifestation Military and • Possessing a commanding presence. professional bearing • Projecting a professional image of authority. • Demonstrating composure and outward calm through control over Confidence Presence one’s emotions. • Showing a tendency to recover quickly from setbacks, shock, injuries, Resilience adversity, and stress while maintaining a mission and organizational focus. • Flexibility of mind; the ability to break habitual patterns. Mental agility • Anticipating or adapting to uncertain or changing situations. • The ability to apply multiple perspectives and approaches The capacity to understand interactions with others. Intellect • • Being aware of how others see you and sensing how to interact with Interpersonal tact them effectively. • Conscious of character, reactions, and motives of self and others and how they affect interactions. Competencies Function/ Competency Description Manifestation Extends influence beyond chain of • Negotiates, builds consensus, and resolves conflict. Lead command Leads by example • Displays character. • Exemplifies the Warrior Ethos. Creates a positive Develop • Fosters teamwork, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty (spirit de corps). environment Figure 15. Summary of content from Army Leadership Requirements Model relevant to social intelligence.231,232

Social Intelligence Research in the Army

In addition to significant overlap between social intelligence and various attributes and competencies identified in Army doctrine, academic research specifically focused on the Army demonstrates the important link between Army leader performance and social intelligence. A few key studies are discussed briefly below.

Zaccaro and colleagues conducted one of the first serious studies investigating the role of social intelligence in the Army.233 In the study they attempted to empirically establish the validity of social intelligence. To do so, the authors examined the life histories of 189 male U.S. Army Soldiers—including 25 officers and 164 enlisted personnel.234 The life histories consisted of a survey that included several measures of social intelligence. Zaccaro et al’s conceptualization was based upon earlier academic definitions of the concept proposed by Ford and Tisak (1983) and Marlowe (1986), discussed previously,

231 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership,1-5. 232 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography, 6. 233 Zaccaro et al., Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence, March 1995. 234 Ibid., 11.

33 who each emphasized behavioral competence or behavioral effectiveness.235 Social intelligence was measured on scales of social perceptiveness, behavioral flexibility, social competence, and systems perception. Academic (verbal) intelligence was measured through the Wonderlic236 and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) tests.237 Peer rankings were integrated following a series of group activities.238 Though the methodology had notable limitations, the preliminary results provided support for the notion of social intelligence as a distinct concept from academic intelligence in relation to Army responsibilities.239 More important to the Army’s interests, the study provided evidence of the importance of social intelligence— specifically its measurement components of social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility—as a determinant of individual performance in team environments.240

In a technical report conducted for ARI, Carpenter and Wisecarver developed and validated a model and taxonomy of the interpersonal skills requirements of U.S. Army Soldier job performance.241 The first portion of the study collected over 1000 critical incidents of interpersonal performance from U.S. Army Special Forces Soldiers for .242 The intent was to sort out the job requirements into the preliminary dimensions of a taxonomy.243 The second portion of the study validated the taxonomic model with a sample of 431 U.S. Army Soldiers from a wide range of military occupational specialties (MOS) and ranks.244 The study identified five higher-order dimensions.245 These dimensions, their sub-components and definitions are detailed in Figure 16. While this model doesn’t explicitly measure or define social intelligence, it provides important research to help detail the social dimensions of job performance that are critical to the Army.246 This might serve as a helpful reference point when developing Army-specific instruments to either assess or develop social competence and social intelligence among Army personnel.247

235 Zaccaro et al., Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence, 15. 236 Also called the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test. It is common aptitude test often given by institutions to employees or prospective employees to test their learning and problem solving abilities. It consists of 50 multiple choice questions to be completed in 12 minutes. 237 Zaccaro et al., Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence, vii. 238 Ibid. 239 Ibid., viii 240 Ibid. 241 Tara D. Carpenter and Michelle M. Wisecarver, Identifying and Validating a Model of Interpersonal Performance Dimensions, Technical Report 1144, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, March 2004, vii-viii. 242 Ibid., vii. 243 Ibid. 244 Ibid. 245 Ibid., 16. 246 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography, B-13. 247 Ibid.

34 DIMENSION DEFINITION § Sub-component Energizing behavior Stimulating goal-directed behavior in others. Providing praise, appreciation, tangible rewards, or whatever an individual desires for § Rewarding others effective performance, significant achievements, special contributions, or demonstrated competence. Energizing the behavior of others using rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, § Influencing others consultation, ingratiation, personal appeals, or exchange. Directing behavior Maintaining the goal-directedness of behavior once it is energized. § Coordinating Organizing the behavior of others so that they function in a smooth concerted way. § Training and Promoting the growth of, fostering the potential of, or developing the skills, concepts, developing or attitudes of others that result in improved performance. § Managing perceptions Directing and influencing the observations and awareness of others. § Managing other Sustaining and/or improving the relationships among co- workers, members of a group relationships or team, subordinates, or individuals in other units. § Controlling Regulating the activities of others. § Role modeling Modeling desired behavior. Exchanging information Disseminating information to and gathering information from others. Communicating to others knowledge needed to do their work. Includes refraining from § Informing communicating unnecessary/irrelevant information. Accumulating information that one's self, others, or an organization needs and § Gathering information disregarding unnecessary/irrelevant information. Building and maintaining Developing bonds with persons relevant to your work in order to access resources relationships that are helpful for job performance. § Demonstrating Being considerate and cooperative in one's interactions with others. courtesy § Helping others Giving assistance and support to others. § Socializing Seeking out and facilitating interaction with others. § Adapting Adjusting one's behavior to fit the social environment. Staffing Linking human capabilities to the demands of the work setting. Those activities involving linking individuals with job demands that are not part of a § Formal staffing formal organizational system. Those activities involving linking individuals with job demands which are § Informal staffing conventionally recognized as staffing and conducted as part of an organizationally established protocol or system such a recruiting, selection, appraisal and promotion. Figure 16. Definition of dimensions and sub-components of taxonomic model of job performance-based interpersonal skills requirements.248

Finally, Schneider and Johnson conducted a considerable study for ARI in 2005 that examined the relationships between social intelligence, social knowledge, and social job performance among Army officers. In their study, Schneider and Johnson defined the following terms as such:

§ Social intelligence: “the ability to infer, acquire, integrate and recall information about persons, social situations, (including operative norms), and social episodes; to

248 Carpenter and Wisecarver, Identifying and Validating a Model of Interpersonal Performance Dimensions, 16-17.

35 reason with and adapt that information to attain social goals to which one is committed…”249 § Social knowledge: “declarative and procedural knowledge/skill necessary for effective social job performance.”250 § Social job performance: “work behaviors that are instrumental to accomplishment of social goals.”251

Their results indicated that social intelligence and social knowledge—as well as interpersonal personality traits and general cognitive ability—positively predicted social job performance in the military.252 Shuffler and colleagues argued that this study provides an instructive and fresh conceptual model for understanding the link between social intelligence, social knowledge, and social performance.253 Furthermore, it demonstrated effective measures for those skills and provided evidence of the specific kinds of military officer social performance that are most predicted by social knowledge and social intelligence.254 In addition to the studies highlighted here, there are a host of investigations and commentaries that have focused on key leadership attributes, traits and competencies in the Army that allude to social intelligence or its proposed constituent parts.255 In all of these cases, there is appreciation—intuitive and empirical—that social intelligence is important to Army leadership and effectiveness. However, much like evidence from the academic field, there is a lack of consensus about what this might mean and what it specifically consists of.

Conclusion

Social intelligence provides a powerful framework for understanding human behavior in social contexts. Since it was first proposed nearly a century ago, it has attracted significant attention from scholars and practitioners alike. This includes intensive and

249 Robert J. Schneider and Jeff W. Johnson, Direct and Indirect Predictors of Social Competence in United States Army Junior Commissioned Officers, Technical Report 1171, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, November 2005, 6. 250 Schneider and Johnson, Direct and Indirect Predictors of Social Competence in United States Army Junior Commissioned Officers, 7. 251 Ibid., 8. 252 Ibid., vii. 253 Shuffler et al., Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography, A-25. 254 Ibid. 255 For instance, refer to: (1) Cheryl Paullin, Peter J. Legree, Andrea L. Sinclair, Karen O. Moriarty, Roy C. Campbell, and Robert N. Kilcullen, “Delineating Officer Performance and Its Determinants,” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 259-277; (2) Sean P. McDonald, “Empirically Based Leadership: Integrating the Science of Psychology in Building a Better Leadership Model,” Military Review (January-February 2013): 2-10; (3) Matthew T. Allen, Bethany H. Bynum, Joy T. Oliver, Teresa L. Russell, Mark C. Young, and Nehama E. Babin. “Predicting Leadership Performance and Potential in the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School (OCS).” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 310-326; (4) Ole Boe, Henning Bang, and Fredrik A. Nilsen, “Selecting the Most Relevant Character Strengths for Norwegian Army Officers: An Educational Tool,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015): 801-809.

36 abundant efforts to conceptualize (define) and operationalize (measure) it through increasingly sophisticated methods, in varied settings, and with diverse populations. Despite important and on-going progress in this regard, the domain of social intelligence—including the specific traits or characteristics that it consists of and how it can be consistently and empirically distinguished from academic intelligence—remains uncertain.

The linkage between job performance, including leadership effectiveness, and social intelligence has been one of the most fruitful areas of research interest and application for the concept. While methodological limitations persist, there is strong evidence to suggest that social intelligence plays a powerful role in organizational effectiveness, job performance, and leadership. This naturally coincides with Army interests to effectively identify, assess, develop, and promote its personnel. As such, the Army has been explicitly interested in social intelligence for the past 20 years. This has been expressed through a variety of platforms, from commentaries in military periodicals to student theses to rigorous scholarly studies to doctrine. Furthermore, social intelligence has been identified as a critical component to specific roles in the Army that are integral to its success in the future operational environment, including those involved in (1) security force assistance/combat advising, (2) brigade command, (3) strategic leadership, (4) joint force interaction, and (5) non-commissioned officer leadership. Recent interest by the Army’s Human Dimension initiative to improve its talent management reinforces the significance of social intelligence in the Army, most notably as a supporting objective for its first line of effort.256 Although serious empirical studies of social intelligence in the Army point to the positive role social intelligence (and related constructs) may have in the Army’s organizational effectiveness, results mirror those in the academic literature and ultimately provide little certainty.

The popularity and intuitive nature of the concept of social intelligence leave it vulnerable to misunderstanding. This white paper provides a brief overview of the challenges those investigating social intelligence over the last century have faced and the limitations of their findings. The review offers theoretical and historical context and vocabulary for future efforts on social intelligence to deliberate. While some of the challenges that trouble social intelligence research may be irreconcilable they comprise an important consideration in any future effort that explicitly relates to the topic.

Any effort to use social intelligence as a meaningful concept in the Army first requires that it is adequately defined. This helps clarify initiatives and discussions that involve social intelligence by standardizing language, concepts and relevance. Moreover, it helps tailor the conceptual framework to match the specific interests and context of the Army’s unique social setting. While social intelligence is cited sparingly in official Army publications, similar concepts and components of social intelligence (such as

256 Department of the Army, The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015: Building Cohesive Teams to Win In A Complex World: Cognitive Dominance, Realistic Training, Institutional Agility, 2015, 8.

37 “interpersonal tact,” “mental agility,” “interpersonal agility,” and “social empathy”) are cited and alluded to throughout. Furthermore, a variety of empirical (quantitative and qualitative) studies conducted for the Army has identified lists of specific traits, attributes or competencies that are critical to Army personnel effectiveness (in leadership positions and otherwise) and organizational and operational success. Many of these overlap with established frameworks of social intelligence proposed in the extant literature. In order to formulate an appropriate, Army-specific definition of social intelligence that meets its interests and needs it is logical and instructive to draw upon existing and accepted traits, attributes and competencies that have been established in the Army through empirical research and cited in doctrine. As such, the HDCDTF proposes the following recommendations:

• The Human Dimension Task Force should solicit an extensive and empirical study of the role of social intelligence in the Army. The intent should be to: o Identify, through empirical evidence, the skills, traits and attributes that comprise social intelligence in an Army context. This includes cognitive and behavioral features. o Determine how these features correspond to or overlap with existing Army doctrine on leadership, decision-making, and Soldier performance. o Determine what specific features of social intelligence are required to achieve Army success in the operational environment of the future.

• Informed by the study above, the Army should establish a single definition of social intelligence as it relates to the Army’s interests and needs. This definition should incorporate existing and relevant (e.g., those that are social in nature) skills, traits, attributes, and competences that have been identified in various doctrine and publications as essential to Army leadership and performance in order to ensure relevance and consistency between efforts. The intent of an official definition of social intelligence is not to establish new or original requirements for professional development in the Army, but to provide a useful framework with which to conceptualize existing efforts. The extensive body of research on social intelligence that is reviewed here should inform the definition. Notably, the definition should include two parts: one acknowledging the cognitive component of social intelligence, and one acknowledging the behavioral component. Once this definition is established, we suggest that social intelligence be integrated in future versions of key publications and doctrine where appropriate to standardize an understanding of the concept and to serve as a tool to better understand how certain social skills are required for effective leadership and more optimal performance.

• The HDCDTF’s two subsequent papers on social intelligence, the first examining the difference between social intelligence and emotional intelligence and the second investigating methods and tools to assess and develop it, should serve to inform and guide the two recommendations above.

38 APPENDIX A – Definitions of social intelligence

Definitions of social intelligence “The ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations.”257 “The ability to get along with others.”258 “Knowledge of social matters and insight into the moods or personality of strangers.”259 “The ability to judge correctly the feelings, moods, and motivation of individuals.”260 “The ability to judge people with respect to feelings, motives, thoughts, intentions, attitudes, etc.”261 “One’s ability to accomplish relevant objectives in specific social settings.”262 “An ability to interact effectively with others.”263 “The ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of persons, including oneself, in interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding.”264 “The ability to understand and manage people.”265 “Individuals’ fund of knowledge about the social world.”266 Definitions of social intelligence in leadership contexts “The ability to recognize, understand, and use emotional intelligence about others that leads to or causes effective or superior performance.”267 “The ability to read and adapt to diverse social situations.”268 “The ability to understand the leadership situation, including political processes and social relationships, and it also includes the ability to select an appropriate response and vary one’s behavior in response to changing conditions.”269 “A leader’s understanding of the feelings, thoughts and behaviors of others in a social domain and his or her selection of the responses that best fit the contingencies and dynamics of that domain.”270 “The ability to be sensitive and understand other people’s perspectives and goals.”271

257 Thorndike, “Intelligence and Its Uses,” 228. 258 Moss and Hunt (1927) cited in Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 205. 259 Vernon (1933) cited in Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 205. 260 Wedeck (1947) cited in Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 205. 261 O’Sullivan, Guilford, and deMille (1965) cited in Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 205. 262 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence,” 197. 263 Crowne “The Relationships Among Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence,” 149. 264 Marlowe, “Social Intelligence,” 52. 265 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence,” 359. 266 Cantor and Kihlstrom (1987) cited in Weis and Süß, “Social Intelligence,” 205. 267 Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” 7. 268 Hoffman and Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders,” 39. 269 Yukl and Mahsud, “ 88. 270 Zaccaro et al., “Leader Traits and Attributes,” 115.

39 APPENDIX B – Components of social intelligence from various models and measures

Author(s) Components, dimensions, factors, predictors, measurements, etc. Goleman and Boyatzis Empathy, attunement, organizational awareness, influence, developing (2008)272 others, inspiration, teamwork. Empathy, organizational awareness, inspirational leadership, conflict Boyatzis (2010)273 management, influence, coach & mentor, teamwork. Social perceptiveness: social awareness, social acumen. Zaccaro et al. (2004)274 Behavioral flexibility: response selection, response enactment. Prosocial attitude, social skills, empathy skills, emotionality, social Marlowe (1986)275 anxiety. Wong (1995)276 Social perception, social insight, social knowledge. Weis and Süß Social understanding, social memory, social perception, social (2005)277 creativity, social knowledge. The ability to engage in behavioral acts that communicate mental states, the ability to create recognizable categories of behavioral acts, the ability to perform an act that has a bearing on what another person is doing, the ability to maintain a sequence of interactions with another person, the ability to alter an expression or a sequence of expressions, the ability to predict many possible outcomes of a setting, Guilford (1967)278 the ability to identify the internal mental states of individuals, the ability to group other people’s mental states on the basis of similarity, the ability to interpret meaningful connections among behavioral acts, the ability to interpret sequences of social behavior, the ability to respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social behavior, the ability to predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation. Tisak and Ford Social competence, empathy, social goal attainment (1983)279 Lee (2000)280 Social inference, social knowledge Declarative knowledge (abstract concepts, specific memories): semantic memory, episodic memory Kihlstrom and Cantor Procedural knowledge (rules, skills and strategies by which a person (2000)281 manipulates and transforms declarative knowledge and translates knowledge into action): cognitive skills, motor skills.

271 Geiwitz cited in Marshall-Mies et al., “Development and Evaluation of Cognitive and Metacognitive Measures for Predicting Leadership Potential,” 140. 272 Goleman and Boyatzis. “Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership,” 5. 273 Boyatzis, “Competencies in the 21st Century,” 81. 274 Zaccaro et al., “Leader Traits and Attributes,” 115. 275 Marlowe, “Social Intelligence,” 52. 276 Wong et al.,“A Multitrait-Multimethod Study of Academic and Social Intelligence in College Students.” 277 Weis and Süß, ”Social Intellience.”. 278 Kihlstrom and Cantor “Social Intelligence,” 361. 279 Ford and Tisak, “A Further Search for Social Intelligence.” 280 Lee et al., “Social and Academic Intelligences.” 281 Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence.”

40 Author(s) Components, dimensions, factors, predictors, measurements, etc. Riggio and Reichard Social expressivity, social sensitivity, social control. (2008)282 Good oral communication skills, self-confidence, sociability, capacity Hoffman and Frost for status, stress tolerance, understanding the social dynamics of (2006)283 organizational problem-solving. Bjorkvist et al. Perceptual skills, cognitive-analytical skills, behavioral (skills) (2000)284 Schneider et al. Social competence: extraversion, warmth, social influence, social (1996)285 insight, social openness, social appropriateness, social maladjustment.

282 Riggio and Reichard, “The Emotional and Social Intelligences of Effective Leadership.” 283 Hoffman and Frost, “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders.” 284 Bjorkvist et al., “Social Intelligence – Empathy = Aggression?” 285 Schneider et al., “To ‘Act Wisely in Human Relations’”

41 APPENDIX C – Related concepts and their definitions

Concept Definition(s) § “The ability to be aware of and to handle one’s emotions in varying situations.”286 § “The ability to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the Emotional intelligence information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”287 § “An array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures.”288

§ “The ability to accomplish personally valued goals by adapting to the environment, (or changing) the Practical intelligence environment, or selecting a new environment.”289 § “The ability of an individual to deal with the problems and situation of everyday life.”290

§ “[The ability for an individual to] recognize their strengths and weaknesses… and capitalize on their strengths while at the same time compensating for or Successful intelligence correcting their weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses can be identified in relation to three broad kinds of abilities: analytic, creative, and practical.”291

286 Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, (New York: Bantam Books, 1995), cited in Kobe et al., “Self- Reported Leadership Experiences in Relation to Inventoried Social and Emotional Intelligence,” 1. 287 Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, “Emotional Intelligence,” Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 9 (1990): 189. 288 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 340. 289 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 138. 290 Lievens and Chan, “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence,” 339 291 Hedlund and Sternberg, "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence," 138.

42 APPENDIX D –Traits, attributes, competencies, and characteristics identified as important to Army leadership and/or performance and relevant to social intelligence

Publication/study Relevant components § Attributes: Character (empathy), presence (military and professional bearing, confidence, resilience), intellect (mental agility, interpersonal tact). ADRP 6-22 (2012)292 § Competencies: Leads (build trust, extends influence beyond the chain of command, leads by example, communicates), develops (creates a positive environment). Geiwitz (1996)293 Social skills (motivation, conflict management). Emotional control, flexible, encourages discussion and involves others in decision making, works to maintain harmony, concerned about Fisher et al. (2010)294 subordinates overall well-being, liked by followers, sensitive to clique rivalries. McDonald (2013)295 Social judgment. Allen et al. (2014)296 Personality (emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness). Johansen et al. Conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness. (2014)297 Interest in leadership, leadership self-efficacy, manipulativeness, peer Legree et al. (2014)298 leadership, response distortion, self-efficacy, social interests, stress tolerance, adjustment, even temper, tolerance, trust/cooperation. Judgment and decision making, attentiveness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, directing and supervising others, adaptability, team Paullin et al. (2014)299 orientation, oral communication, self-efficacy, motivating others, delegating, achievement motivation, team building, self-management. Boe al. (2015)300 Open-mindedness, social intelligence, self-regulation, perspective Zacher et al. (2015)301 Extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness.

292 Department of the Army, ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership, 2012. 293 James Geiwitz, A Conceptual Model of Metacognitive Skills, ARI Contractor Report 96-08, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, June 1996. 294 Kelly Fisher, Kate Hutchings, and James C. Sarros, “The ‘Bright’ and ‘Shadow’ Aspects of In Extremis Leadership,” Military Psychology 22 (Supplement) (2010): S89-S116. 295 McDonald, “Empirically Based Leadership.” 296 Allen et al., “Predicting Leadership Performance and Potential in the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School (OCS).” 297 Rino Bandlitz Johansen, Jon Christian Laberg, and Monica Martinussen, “Military Identity as Predictor of Perceived Military Competence and Skills,” Armed Forces & Society 40, no. 3 (2014): 521-543. 298 Peter J. Legree, Robert N. Kilcullen, Dan J. Putka, and Laurie E. Wasko, “Identifying the Leaders of Tomorrow: Validating Predictors of Leader Performance,” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 292-309. 299 Paullin et al., “Delineating Officer Performance and Its Determinants.” 300 Boe et al., “Selecting the Most Relevant Character Strengths for Norwegian Army Officers.” 301 Hannes Zacher, Bernard McKenna, David Rooney, and Steven Gold, “Wisdom in the Military Context,” Military Psychology 27, no. 3 (2015): 142-154.

43 References

Albrecht, Karl. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.

Allen, Matthew T., Bethany H. Bynum, Joy T. Oliver, Teresa L. Russell, Mark C. Young, and Nehama E. Babin. “Predicting Leadership Performance and Potential in the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School (OCS).” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 310-326.

Antonakis, John, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Marie T. Dasborough. “Does Leadership Need Emotional Intelligence?” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009): 247-261.

Bass, Bernard M. “Cognitive Social, and Emotional Intelligence of Transformational Leaders.” In Multiple Intelligences and Leadership, edited by Ronald E. Riggio, Susan E. Murphy, and Francis J. Priozzolo, 105-118. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2002.

Bjorkvist, Kaj, Karin Osterman, and Ari Kaukiainen. “Social Intelligence — Empathy = Aggression?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 5, no. 2 (2000): 191-200.

Boe, Ole, Henning Bang, and Fredrik A. Nilsen. “Selecting the Most Relevant Character Strengths for Norwegian Army Officers: An Educational Tool.” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015): 801-809.

Boyatzis, Richard E. “Competencies in the 21st Century.” Journal of Management Development 27, no. 1 (2008): 5-12.

Boyatzis, Richard E., Tony Lingham, and Angela Passarelli. “Inspiring the Development of Emotional, Social and Cognitive Intelligence Competencies in Managers.” In Self- Management and Leadership Development, edited by Mitchell G. Rothstein and Ronald J. Burke, 62-90. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2010.

Brown, Larry T. and Randall G. Anthony. “Continuing the Search for Social Intelligence.” Personality and Individual Differences 11, no. 5 (1990): 463-470.

Bruner, Jerome S. and Cecil C. Goodman. “Value and Need as Organizing Factors in Perception.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 42, no. 1 (1947): 33-44.

Cacioppo, John T. Social Awareness and Action Training (SAAT). Fort Detrick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, April 2014.

Cacioppo, John T., Harry T. Reis, and Alex J. Zautra. “Social Resilience: The Value of Social Fitness with an Application to the Military.” American Psychologist 66 (January 2011): 43-51.

Campbell, Donald J. "Leadership in Dangerous Contexts." In The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology, edited by Janice H. Laurence and Michael D. Matthews, 158-175. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2012.

Cantor, Nancy, and John F. Kihlstrom. “Social Intelligence: The Cognitive Basis of Personality.” In

44 Self, Situations, and Social Behavior: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, edited by Phillip Shaver, 15-33. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, 1985.

Carpenter, Tara D., and Michelle M. Wisecarver. Identifying and Validating a Model of Interpersonal Performance Dimensions. Technical Report 1144. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. March 2004.

Crowne, Kerri. "The Relationships Among Social Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Cultural Intelligence." Organization Management Journal 6 (2009): 148-163.

Department of the Army. ADRP 6-0: Mission Command. May 2012.

Department of the Army. ADRP 6-22: Army Leadership. August 2012.

Department of the Army. Army Leadership Development Strategy (ALDS): Training, Education, Experience. 2013.

Department of the Army. ATP 6-22.6: Army Team Building. October 2015.

Department of the Army. The Army Human Dimension Strategy 2015: Building Cohesive Teams to Win In A Complex World: Cognitive Dominance, Realistic Training, Institutional Agility. 2015.

Department of the Army. The U.S. Army Human Dimension Concept. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7. May 21, 2014.

Department of the Army. The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World: 2020- 2040. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1. October 31, 2014.

Doty, Lieutenant Colonel Joe, and Master Sergeant Jeff Fenlason. “Narcissism and Toxic Leaders.” Military Review (January-February 2013): 55-60.

Ensari, Nurcan, Ronald E. Riggio, Julie Christian, and Gregory Carslaw. “Who Emerges As a Leader? Meta-Analyses of Individual Differences as Predictors of Leadership Emergence.” Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011): 532-536.

Fallesen, Jon J., Heidi Keller-Glaze, and Christina K. Curnow. “A Selective Review of Leadership Studies in the U.S. Army.” Military Psychology 23 (2011): 462-478.

Feyerham, Anne E., and Cheryl L. Rice. “Emotional Intelligence and Team Performance: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 10, no. 4 (2002): 343-362.

Fisher, Kelly, Kate Hutchings, and James C. Sarros. “The ‘Bright’ and ‘Shadow’ Aspects of In Extremis Leadership.” Military Psychology 22 (Supplement) (2010): S89-S116.

Ford, Martin E., and Marie S. Tisak. “A Further Search for Social Intelligence.” Journal of Educational Psychology 75, no. 2 (1983): 196-206.

45

Gallus, Jessica A., Benjamin M. Walsh, Marinus van Driel, Melissa C. Gouge, and Emily Antolic. “Intolerable Cruelty: A Mulitlevel Examination of the Impact of Toxic Leadership on U.S. Military Units and Service Members.” Military Psychology 25, no. 6 (2013): 588-601.

Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1983.

Geiwitz, James. A Conceptual Model of Metacognitive Skills. ARI Contractor Report 96-08. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. June 1996.

Goleman, Daniel. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 2006.

Goleman, Daniel, and Richard Boyatzis. “Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review (September 2008): 2-7.

Guilford, J.P. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

Hedlund, Jennifer, John Antonakis, and Robert J. Sternberg. Tacit Knowledge and Practical Intelligence: Understanding the Lessons of Experience. ARI Research Note 2003-04. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. October 2002.

Hedlund, Jennifer, George B. Forsythe, Joseph A. Horvath, Wendy M. Williams, Scott Snook, and Robert J. Sternberg. “Identifying and Assessing Tacit Knowledge: Understanding The Practical Intelligence of Military Leaders.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003): 117-140.

Hedlund, Jennifer, and Robert J. Sternberg. "Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence." In The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, edited by Reuven Bar-On and James D.A. Parker, 136-167. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Hoffman, Brian J., and Brian C. Frost. “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational Leaders: An Empirical Examination.” International Journal of Manpower 27, no. 1 (2006): 37-51.

Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force. Building Mutual Trust Between Soldiers and Leaders. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Mission Command Center of Excellence (MCCOE), United States Army Combined Arms Center, January 2015.

Human Dimension Capabilities Development Task Force. Person-Organization Fit and Mission Command: Why Developing a Mission Command Subset of Leadership Attributes Can Facilitate the Army-wide Implementation of the Mission Command Philosophy. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Mission Command Center of Excellence (MCCOE), United States Army Combined Arms Center, September 2015.

Johansen, Rino Bandlitz, Jon Christian Laberg, and Monica Martinussen. “Military Identity as

46 Predictor of Perceived Military Competence and Skills.” Armed Forces & Society 40, no. 3 (2014): 521-543.

Kelly, George A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955.

Kihlstrom, John F., and Nancy Cantor. “Social Intelligence.” In Handbook of Intelligence, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, 359-379. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Kit, Ng Wai. Strategic Military Leaders—Leading Tomorrow. Strategy Research Project. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College. March 2008.

Kobe, Lisa M., Roni Reiter-Palmon, and Jon D. Rickers. “Self-Reported Leadership Experiences in Relation to Inventoried Social and Emotional Intelligence.” Psychology Faculty Publications. Paper 66. 2001.

Larsson, Gerry, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson, Per-Olof Michel. “A Comprehensive System for Leader Evaluation and Development.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24, no. 1 (2003): 16-25.

Laurence, Janice H. “Military Leadership and the Complexity of Combat and Culture.” Military Psychology 23 (2011): 489-501.

Lee, Jong-Eun, Chau-Ming T. Wong, Jeanne D. Day, Scott E. Maxwell, and Pamela Thorpe. “Social and Academic Intelligences: A Multitrait-Multimethod Study of Their Crystallized and Fluid Characteristics.” Personality and Individual Differences 29 (2000): 539-553.

Legree, Peter J. “Evidence for an Oblique Social Intelligence Factor Established With a Likert- Based Testing Procedure.” Intelligence 21 (1995): 247-266.

Legree, Peter J., Robert N. Kilcullen, Dan J. Putka, and Laurie E. Wasko. “Identifying the Leaders of Tomorrow: Validating Predictors of Leader Performance.” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 292-309.

Lievens, Filip, and David Chan. “Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, and Social Intelligence.” In Handbook of Employee Selection, edited by James L. Farr and Nancy T. Tippins, 339-360. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, 2010.

Lilley, Darcy L. “Applying Positive Leadership Principles to an Investigation of Organizational Stress in Military Units and the Benefits Associated With Providing Leaders With Emotional Intelligence Social Awareness.” Paper presented at the Research-to-Practice Conference in and Higher Education, Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 20-21, 2013.

Livingstone, Holly, Maria Nadjiwon-Foster, and Sonya Smithers. Emotional Intelligence & Military Leadership. Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. March 11, 2002.

Markessini, Joan. Executive Leadership in a Changing World Order: Requisite Cognitive Skills: The

47 First Literature Review. ARI Contractor Report 96-05. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. June 1996.

Marlowe, Herbert A., Jr. “Social Intelligence: Evidence for Multidimensionality and Construct Independence.” Journal of Educational Psychology 78, no. 1 (1986): 52-58.

Marshall-Mies, Joanne C., Edwin A. Fleishman, Jennifer A. Martin, Stephen J. Zacarro, Wayne A. Baughman, and Michael L. McGee. “Development and Evaluation of Cognitive and Metacognitive Measures for Predicting Leadership Potential.” Leadership Quarterly 11, no. 1 (2000): 135-153.

Matthews, Gerald, Moshe Zeidner, and Richard D. Roberts. “Appendix A: A Review and Critique of Social Intelligence.” In Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth, by Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner, and Richard D. Roberts, 551-561. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.

Matthews, Michael D., Jarle Eid, Dennis Kelly, Jennifer K.S. Bailey, and Christopher Peterson. “Character Strengths and Virtues of Developing Military Leaders: An International Comparison.” Military Psychology 18 (Supplement) (2006): S57-S68.

McDonald, Sean P. “Empirically Based Leadership: Integrating the Science of Psychology in Building a Better Leadership Model.” Military Review (January-February 2013): 2-10.

Paullin, Cheryl, Peter J. Legree, Andrea L. Sinclair, Karen O. Moriarty, Roy C. Campbell, and Robert N. Kilcullen. “Delineating Officer Performance and Its Determinants.” Military Psychology 26, no. 4 (2014): 259-277.

Picano, James J., and Robert R. Roland. "Assessing Psychological Suitability for High-Risk Military Jobs." In The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology, edited by Janice H. Laurence and Michael D. Matthews, 148-157. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2012.

Psotka, Joseph, Peter J. Legree, and Dawn M. Gray. Collaboration and Self Assessment: How to Combine 360 Assessments to Increase Self-Understanding. ARI Research Note 2007-03. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. March 2007.

Ramsey, Michael J. "Military Selection and Classification in the United States." In The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology, edited by Janice H. Laurence and Michael D. Matthews, 129-147. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2012.

Reed, George E., and R. Craig Bullis. “The Impact of Destructive Leadership on Senior Military Officers and Civilian Employees.” Armed Forces & Society 36, no. 1 (2009): 5-18.

Riggio, Ronald E. “Before Emotional Intelligence: Research on Nonverbal, Emotional, and Social Competences.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3 (2010): 178-182.

Riggio, Ronald E., and Rebecca J. Reichard. “The Emotional and Social Intelligences of Effective Leadership: An Emotional and Social Skill Approach.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23, no. 3 (2008): 169-185.

48

Riggio, Ronald E., Heidi R. Riggio, Charles Salinas, and Emmet J. Cole. “The Role of Social and Emotional Communication Skills in Leader Emergence and Effectiveness.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7, no. 2 (2003): 83-103.

Rogers, Carl A. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

Rotter, Julian B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs 80, no. 1 (1966): 1-28.

Salovey, Peter, and John D. Mayer. “Emotional Intelligence.” Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9 (1990): 185-211.

Schneider, Robert J., Phillip L. Ackerman, and Ruth Kanfer. “To ‘Act Wisely in Human Relations:’ Exploring The Dimensions of Social Competence.” Personality and Individual Differences 21, no. 4 (1996): 469-481.

Schneider, Robert J., and Jeff W. Johnson. Direct and Indirect Predictors of Social Competence in United States Army Junior Commissioned Officers. Technical Report 1171. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. November 2005.

Sewell, LTC Gerald F. “Emotional Intelligence and the Army Leadership Requirements Model.” Military Review (November-December 2009): 93-98.

Sewell, Gerald F. “How Emotional Intelligence Can Make A Difference.” Military Review (March- April 2011): 79-83.

Shoda, Yuichi. “Individual Difference in Social Psychology: Understanding Situations to Understand People, Understanding People to Understand Situations.” In The Sage Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology, edited by Carole Sansone, Carolyn C. Morf, and A.T. Panter, 117-141. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004.

Shuffler, Melissa, Heidi Keller-Glaze, Beret Strong, William S. Weyrauch, Jessica Jenkins, Jonathan Bryson, and Kimberly A. Metcalf. Organizational Social Effectiveness: An Annotated Bibliography. Research Product 2014-03. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and . January 2014.

Spearman, C. “’General Intelligence,’ Objectively Determined and Measured.” The American Journal of Psychology 15, no. 2 (April 1904): 201-292.

Sternberg, Robert J. “A Broad View of Intelligence: The Theory of Successful Intelligence.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 55, no.3 (Summer 2003): 139-154.

Sternberg, Robert J. “Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three is Better Than One.” Educational Psychologist 21, no. 3 (1986): 175-190.

Sternberg, Robert J. “Successful Intelligence: Finding a Balance.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3,

49 no. 11 (November 1999): 436-442.

Sternberg, Robert J. “WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 2, no. 4 (December 2003): 386-401.

Taylor, Edward H., and Jean Lud Cadet. “Social Intelligence, a Neurological System?” Psychological Reports (1989): 423-444.

Thorndike, Edward L. “Intelligence and Its Uses.” Harpers Monthly Magazine 140 (1920): 227- 235.

Turnley, William H. The Impact of Social Intelligence and Impression Management on Perceived Leadership Potential and Group Cohesiveness. Technical Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research. December 20, 2001.

Weis, Susanne, and Heinz-Martin Süß.”Social Intellience—A Review and Critical Discussion of Measurement Concepts.” In Emotional Intelligence: An International Handbook, edited by Ralf Schulze and Richard D. Roberts, 203-230. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2005.

Weis, Susanne, and Heinz-Martin Süß. “Reviving the Search for Social Intelligence—A Multitrait- Multimethod Study of its Structure and Construct Validity.” Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007): 3-14.

Williams, Thomas J., James J. Picano, Robert R. Roland, and Paul Bartone. "Operational Psychology: Foundation, Applications, and Issues." In The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology, edited by Janice H. Laurence and Michael D. Matthews, 37-49. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2012.

Wong, Chau-Ming T., Jeanne D. Day, Scott E. Maxwell, and Naomi M. Meara. “A Multitrait- Multimethod Study of Academic and Social Intelligence in College Students.” Journal of Educational Psychology 87, no. 1 (1995): 117-133.

Wong, Leonard, Paul Bliese, and Dennis McGurk. “Military Leaderhip: A Context Specific Review.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003): 657-692.

Yukl, Gary, and Rubina Mahsud. “Why Flexible and Adaptive Leadership is Essential.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 62, no. 2 (2010): 81-93.

Zaccaro, Stephen J. Senior Leadership: An Annotated Bibliography of Research Supported by the Army Research Institute. ARI Research Note 98-11. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. June 1998.

Zaccaro, Stephen J., Janelle A. Gilbert, Michelle M. Zazanis, and Marisa Diana. Investigating a Background Data Measure of Social Intelligence. Technical Report 1024. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. March 1995.

Zaccaro, Stephen J., Cary Kemp, and Paige Bader. “Leader Traits and Attributes.” In The Nature

50 of Leadership, edited by John Antonakis, Anna T. Cianciolo, and Robert J. Sternberg, 101- 124. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.

Zaccaro, Stephen J., Andrea L. Rittman, and Michelle A. Marks. “Team Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001): 451-483.

Zacher, Hannes, Bernard McKenna, David Rooney, and Steven Gold. “Wisdom in the Military Context.” Military Psychology 27, no. 3 (2015): 142-154.

Zirkel, Sabrina. “Social Intelligence: The Development and Maintenance of Purposive Behavior.” In The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace, edited by Reuven Bar-On and James D.A. Parker, 3-27. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

51

Top View