Although the words from these two literary prophets were written many decades ago, in many ways, they encapsulate our world today. The pace of technology, the explosion of new products and services, and the dynamic and diverse nature of the global economy have created a knowledge tsunami. The importance of continually learning and evolving has never been greater. 

To be successful today, organizations need to be nimble, responsive, and constantly reinventing themselves. And individuals – in particular, leaders – in those organizations must be smart,attuned socially to the needs and desires of all their stakeholders, environmentally mindful, agile, and responsive!Certainly, the important role that intelligence plays in employee success has been recognized for a long time. Scientists have been studying intelligence or IQ for more than a century. There appears to be little doubt of its importance in performance. Emotional intelligence is a relatively new kid on the block. The concept of emotional intelligence or EQ came in to prominence during the mid-1990s when Daniel Goleman published his hallmark work on it. Most recently, learning agility has been proposed as the critical attribute in leader success (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).

Much has been written about each of those three individual characteristics and their relationship to job performance. Blog postings, media outlets, and consulting firms tout their virtues daily. Business books extoll how vital each one is to employee achievement. Testimonials and anecdotal exaggerations dominate the internet. It has reached a point where it has become difficult to discern the veracity of such proclamations or determine which attribute might be most pivotal to a leader’s performance.

The purpose of this whitepaper is to investigate more carefully how each of the three attributes is related to job performance, more specifically leader success. The scientific origin and merits of each will be examined briefly to provide a more unbiased review. The focus is to analyze various studies through the statistical lens of “meta studies’ findings were attenuated by various statistical artifacts that the importance of intelligence 
to job success was revisited (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Schmidt & Hunter, 1977).

These authors devised methods for correcting such statistical problems due to sampling error, theunreliability of instruments used to measure intelligence and job performance, and restriction of range in both measures. These statistical corrections resulted in significantly higher correlation coefficients.Subsequently, Schmidt, Hunter, and their colleagues published a series of meta-analyses that doubled the correlations between intelligence and job performance. For example, Hunter (1980) and Hunter and Hunter (1984) used a data set of more than 32,000 employees from the U.S. 

Department of Labor and found that GMA correlations with performance ranged from 0.23 for unskilled jobs to 0.58 for professional and managerial jobs. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) reported the overall relationship between general mental ability tests and performance was ρ = 0.51.

(The Greek symbol ρ or rho is the statistic used to estimate the actual relationship between two variables in the population as a whole.) More recently, Schmidt, Oh, and Schaffer (2016) examined the results of eight separately published meta-analyses reviewing the relationship between various selection methods and job performance and found the population correlation coefficient between GMA and performance was ρ = 0.65. Thus, this scientific evidence certainly indicates IQ is very, very important for performance in work settings.

Relationship between EQ and Job Performance In 1995 American psychologist Daniel Goleman published his groundbreaking book entitled, Emotional intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. During the last two decades, emotional intelligence – often referred to as EI or EQ (emotional quotient) – has mushroomed into a 
multimillion dollar industry. A search of consulting firm websites revealed that more than 150 consultingfirms offer EI-related services and products. Goleman’s 1995 book has become one of the 25 most influential management books of all time according to Time magazine and his 1998 Harvard Business Review article has become the most requested reprint of all time from this journal.

Few concepts have captured our consciousness more than EQ. Many grandiose claims about its importance can be found on various websites and blog postings. For example:EQ is responsible for 58% of one’s job performance;90% of top performers have a high EQ; and People with a high EQ earn $29,000 more annually than their low-EQ counterparts.

Authors who have written books espousing the virtues of EI have asserted that “emotional intelligence is a better predictor of performance than technical skill, experience, or intellect” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2005, p. 24). Indeed, EQ has played an important role in leadership training. Numerous organizations have added EQ courses into their managerial development  programs, and many business schools have incorporated emotional competencies into their curriculums (Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002). Despite this popularity, there remains much confusion with regard to what emotional intelligence is exactly. 

It has evolved over time to become synonymous with the possession of people skills. However, Goleman defined it in terms of a new form of intelligence pertaining to emotions asopposedtocognitiveability.Accordingly, he asserted that employees perform their jobs more effectively when they possess high emotional intelligence. Moreover, he claimed the higher a position in an organization the more EI matters, and that emotional competencies should “guide decisions about who is hired, who is put on a fast track for promotion, and where to focus development efforts – particularly for leadership” (Goleman, 2001, p. 22).
Historically, two different approaches have been applied to the definition and measurement of the construct of EI. The first one conceptualizes it as Goleman originally defined it as a facet of intelligence – that is, as a set of abilities to recognize and regulate emotions in ourselves and in others (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The second definition is more of an umbrella term encompassing an amalgamation of personality traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion,and emotional stability, as well as other self-perceived abilities and interpersonal behaviors (Bar performance appears much stronger. Nevertheless, the importance of EQ should not be overlooked. Managers high on EQ likely engender more engaged, positively oriented work teams than ones who are narcissistic, self-centered, or those managers who possess poor people skills.
Relationship between Learning Agility and Job Performance Perhaps, no other concept has struck a chord more loudly in the business world during the past decade than learning agility. Human resource professionals around the globe have been using it to help them identify and develop high potential talent and select organizational leaders. The accolades and testimonials espousing its virtues are impressive (De Meuse, 2017). For example:
The most in-demand business skill of the 21st century;
Learning agility equals leadership success; and
Business results depend on learning agile leaders.

Many well-known global organizations such as Novartis, Mars, GE, and Mondelez have been applying learning agility in their leadership identification and development programs for many years.

Certainly the need for leaders to adjust their managerial style as situations change has been recognized for many years (e.g., Fiedler, 1967). Further, it has been widely accepted for a long time that differentleadership competencies, managerial behaviors, decision styles, and supervisory approaches are needed as leaders climb the organizational ladder (e.g., Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2001; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). 

Successful leaders evolve and grow from their experiences. They are able to let go of old habits and ways of performing their jobs and latch on to new supervisory techniques and practices when it is required (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Successful leaders are malleable; they can recast their identities. Perhaps, it is the key reason why the application of learning agility has been so appealing to practitioners of talent management.

Research on executive leadership also suggests strongly that “learning from experience” is related to leader effectiveness. In a comprehensive review of the literature on high potential talent, Silzer and Church (2009) emphasized the importance of a learning component for high potential identification. Other scholars likewise have asserted that building and diversifying one’s skill set and engaging in continuous learning are essential for career success in today’s economy (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2013). Consequently, as the definition of learning agility posits, an individual’s ability to learn from experience and then possess the willingness and flexibility to apply those lessons to perform successfully in new situations would appear to be critical for any leadership role.

Recently, I performed a meta-analysis to scientifically examine the empirical relationship between learning agility and leadership (De Meuse, 2018). Both leader performance and leader potential were investigated. A pool of 19 field studies with a total of 4,863 employees was analyzed. The majority of participants were identified clearly as managers and executives (n = 3,294; 68%). 

Others were classified by the authors of the studies as a combination of both managers and non In contrast, learning agility had the highest relationship with leader performance (see the following graph). Further, note the very low relationship between job experience and performance. This finding suggests that experience alone is insufficient. Learning from that experience, behavioral flexibility, and managerial growth – which is the essence of learning agility – are needed to perform well Several other points with regard to utilizing IQ as a selection method are notable. First, the meta  One other point with regard to emotional intelligence and learning agility is important. Dai, De Meuse, and Tang (2013) explored the impact of these two attributes on the following two performance outcomes over a 10-year period: (a) annual salary increases and (b) number of promotions. They discovered through a series of regression analyses that when one accounts for EQ, learning agility continues to explain a significant portion of variance in those outcomes. However, when one accounts for learning agility, EQ explains no further variance. Thus, the construct of learning agility included whatever explanatory power EQ measured, but the reverse was not true. For illustration, the TALENTx7? Assessment of learning agility measure facets such as “interpersonal acumen,” “environmental mindfulness,” “self-insight,” and “feedback responsiveness.” All of them likely are components related to emotional intelligence. If one has to choose between a measure of EQ versus learning agility, choose the latter.

Conclusion The overall body of scientific evidence reveals the importance of learning agility to leader success
– both performance and potential – is not simply hyperbole. Indeed, when contrasted with other longer standing job selection methods such as IQ and EQ, learning agility was substantially more related toperformance. Further, the measurement of learning agility as opposed to IQ has the benefits of (a) avoiding adverse impact, (b) decreasing the likelihood of candidates reacting defensively at being given a “test,” and (c) being provided a diagnostic overview of behaviors individuals can develop. In addition, an assessment of learning agility appears to capture the fundamental characteristics of EQ. Although additional research needs to be conducted to reinforce these findings, the relevance and significance of this construct to the discipline of talent management and leadership development appear undeniable .