Cognitive Ability: Why the Smartest Person May Not Be the Best Leader

For decades, organizations have sought effective ways to identify candidates who will excel in their roles. Talent assessment has continually evolved, influenced by new research and the shifting demands of the modern workplace. For a long time, cognitive ability tests were considered the gold standard for predicting job success. This belief was largely supported by the work of industrial-organizational psychologists Frank Schmidt and John Hunter (1998).(1)

However, more recent reviews, such as one led by Paul Sackett and colleagues (2022) (2), have challenged the accuracy of Schmidt’s conclusions. As a result, cognitive ability tests are no longer regarded as the most reliable predictor of job performance.

Meanwhile, research by Hogan, Hogan, and Kaiser (2009) (3) revealed that 50% of leaders eventually fail in their roles. Relying on chance-level odds in leadership selection is simply not acceptable. So how can organizations take a more scientific and strategic approach to identifying high performers?

A Multi-Faceted Approach

Only the largest organizations can afford a full suite of assessments that includes cognitive ability testing, personality evaluations, structured interviews, and learning agility tools. For others, making informed choices among available methods is critical.

Whatever assessments are used, it is essential that they measure traits directly relevant to job performance. Proper validation helps reduce both bias and legal risks.

Personality Assessment

Personality assessments identify behavioral traits that are broadly predictive of job performance and cultural fit. These tools provide valuable insights into how candidates communicate and collaborate. While personality traits tend to remain stable over time, individuals can learn to manage their weaknesses. When they don’t, derailment is likely.

Competency-Based Structured Interviews

The practice of competency modeling gained traction in the 1980s. Though the rigor of methods varies widely, the core idea remains: define the skills that separate top performers from the rest. Richard Boyatzis (4) described competencies as specific sets of behaviors that distinguish high performers in a given role.

Effective models allow interviewers to use behavioral event interviewing techniques, asking candidates to describe real experiences rather than hypothetical scenarios. This helps organizations assess a candidate’s fit for the current job demands. This is particularly important because, according to a 2022 study by the Boston Consulting Group (Sigelman et al.) (5), job requirements are evolving rapidly. They found that 37% of the top 20 skills for any job had changed in the past six years, and 22% of those skills were entirely new. In this environment, competency modeling has a shorter shelf life than in the past.

Learning Agility Assessment

What traditional assessments miss is a candidate’s ability to learn—especially in unfamiliar or rapidly changing conditions. Eichinger and Lombardo coined the term “learning agility” to describe this skill. Initially, there was no way to measure it reliably.

Over the following decade, Dr. Warner Burke of Columbia University developed a validated learning agility assessment (6). His tool identifies nine key dimensions and 38 observable behaviors, offering insight into how individuals respond to change, adapt, and grow. This measure is especially relevant in a world where future challenges are increasingly unpredictable.

Summary

In the past, organizations could reasonably rely on historical performance to predict future success. That is no longer the case. Job roles are evolving faster than ever, driven by technology, AI, and market shifts.

The smartest person in the room may not be the most effective performer. Research by DeRue (7) shows that while cognitive ability matters to a point, beyond a certain threshold, additional intelligence does not translate into greater learning agility.

For organizations with the resources to apply multiple assessments, the combination of personality, cognitive ability, structured interviews, and learning agility will yield the most robust results. For those limited to just one tool, learning agility stands out as the best predictor of who will perform and adapt effectively—today and tomorrow.

References:

1. Schmidt, FL & Hunter, J. 1998. A validade e a utilidade dos métodos de seleção em psicologia de pessoal: implicações práticas e teóricas de 85 anos de resultados de pesquisa. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 262-274 .

2. Sackett, PR Zhang, C. Berry, CM & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisitando estimativas meta-analíticas de validade na seleção de pessoal: Abordando a sobrecorreção sistemática para restrição de alcance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107, 2040-2068 .

3. Hogan, RJ, Hogan, R. & Kaiser, RB 2009. O que sabemos sobre liderança. Revista de Psicologia Geral. Vol. 9, n.º 2, 169-180 .

4. Boyatzis, RE (1982). O Gerente Competente – Um Modelo para Desempenho Eficaz. John Wiley and Sons, Nova Iorque. 20-23 .

5. Sigelman, M, Taska, B., Strack, R., Baier, J., Breitling, F., & Kotsis, A. Mudança de Competências, Alvos em Movimento e Reformulação da Força de Trabalho. (2022). Boston Consulting Group, Boston .

6. Burke, W. (2016). Relatório Técnico de Agilidade de Aprendizagem Burke. St. Louis. EASI Consult .

7. DeRue, D., Ashford, S., Myers, C., 2012. “Agilidade de Aprendizagem: Em Busca de Clareza Conceitual e Fundamentação Teórica”. Psicologia Industrial e Organizacional 5 (3). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.