Can super smart leaders suffer from too much of a good thing? The curvilinear effect of intelligence on perceived leadership behavior.

Although researchers predominately test for linear relationships between variables, at times there may be theoretical and even empirical reasons for expecting nonlinear functions. We examined if the relation between intelligence (IQ) and perceived leadership might be more accurately described by a curvilinear single-peaked function. Following Simonton’s (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership. The sample consisted of mid-level leaders from multinational private-sector companies. We used the leaders’ scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test—a measure of IQ—to predict how they would be perceived on prototypically effective leadership (i.e., transformational and instrumental leadership). Accounting for the effects of leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects, analyses indicated that perceptions of leadership followed a curvilinear inverted-U function of intelligence. The peak of this function was at an IQ score of about 120, which did not depart significantly from the value predicted by the theory. As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace

Developmental contexts and features of elite academy football players: Coach and player perspectives

Player profiling can reap many benefits; through reflective coach-athlete dialogue that produces a profile the athlete has a raised awareness of their own development, while the coach has an opportunity to understand the athlete's viewpoint. In this study, we explored how coaches and players perceived the development features of an elite academy footballer and the contexts in which these features are revealed, in order to develop a player profile to be used for mentoring players. Using a Delphi polling technique, coaches and players experienced a number of 'rounds' of expressing their opinions regarding player development contexts and features, ultimately reduced into a consensus. Players and coaches had differing priorities on the key contexts of player development. These contexts, when they reflect the consensus between players and coaches were heavily dominated by ability within the game and training. Personal, social, school, and lifestyle contexts featured less prominently. Although 'discipline' was frequently mentioned as an important player development feature, coaches and players disagreed on the importance of 'training'

The landscape of gifted and talented education in England and Wales: How are teachers implementing policy?

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 167-186, 2012, copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/02671522.2010.509514.This paper explores the evidence relating to how primary schools are responding to the ‘gifted and talented’ initiative in England and Wales. A questionnaire survey which invited both closed and open-ended responses was carried out with a national sample of primary schools. The survey indicated an increasing proportion of coordinators, compared with a survey carried out in 1996, were identifying their gifted and talented children as well as having associated school policies. However, the survey also highlighted a number of issues which need addressing if the initiative is to achieve its objective of providing the best possible educational opportunities for children. For example, it was found that a significant number of practitioners were not aware of the existence of the National Quality Standards for gifted and talented education, provided by the UK government in 2007, and the subject-specific criteria provided by the UK’s Curriculum Authority for identification and provision have been largely ignored. The process of identifying children to be placed on the ‘gifted and talented’ register seems haphazard and based on pragmatic reasons. Analysis of teachers’ responses also revealed a range of views and theoretical positioning held by them, which have implications for classroom practice. As the ‘gifted and talented’ initiative in the UK is entering a second decade, and yet more significant changes in policy are introduced, pertinent questions need to be raised and given consideration