Is being “intelligent” even necessary to get promoted at work?

We’re told intelligence is the ticket to career success. But evidence from the corporate world, the military and beyond suggests otherwise.

The assumption that hardly gets questioned

I recently read a Substack article that highlighted the importance of ‘intelligence’ in a leader. While I agreed with the general sentiment — yes, leaders should be intelligent — it got me thinking. How important is intelligence, really, when it comes to getting promoted and climbing the corporate ladder? And what do we even mean when we call someone “intelligent”?

I mean, most of us have come across people whose promotion didn’t quite make logical sense. In a previous article, I wrote about a lawyer I worked with who lacked even basic technical skills yet somehow got promoted anyway.

This article explores both empirical research and anecdotal evidence to understand how important ‘intelligence’ actually is in getting promoted.

---

What is even meant by “intelligence”

In workplace research, conventional intelligence typically refers to a high IQ, top university degrees, strong grades or test scores and the ability to grasp complex or abstract ideas quickly. Importantly, this definition excludes emotional intelligence, practical intelligence and social intelligence.

Over the years, there has been growing recognition of the qualities that make a good leader. Emotional intelligence and soft skills are now seen as essential.

But the question remains: how intelligent do you actually need to be to get promoted?

According to a large body of industrial-organisational psychology research, apparently not very.

---

The intelligence promotion paradox

It has long been a maxim in corporate life that being smart is seen as being better. To some extent, the data supports this. Meta-analyses show that higher intelligence is strongly correlated with job performance. Smarter employees tend to learn faster, make fewer mistakes and produce higher quality work.

But job performance is not the same as career progression.

Many of us can recall examples where the most diligent or technically skilled person was passed over for promotion in favour of someone less capable but more visible. In fact, research consistently shows that being a highly intelligent and diligent worker has little correlation to career advancement.

This is the intelligence promotion paradox: the people who are best at the job are not always the ones who get promoted. And often, those who do rise underperform once they get there.

---

Why do the less intelligent get promoted?

Organisations like to believe they promote based on merit. But in practice, promotion decisions are often shaped by subjective evaluations, bias and favouritism. Output and competence are just part of the equation and sometimes not even the most essential part. Instead, promotions tend to reward those who are skilled at navigating internal dynamics or confident enough to push themselves forward.

In researching this article, I, hilariously enough, came across a Harvard/NBER study showing that some common promotion methods of organisations perform worse than random selection. The authors dryly note that “in corporate America, few things are as dangerous as the overconfidence of mediocre men”.

---

The “anti-IQ” military promotion system

One of the most persuasive examples that intelligence alone doesn’t guarantee advancement is from the U.S. Army. A study of over 5,000 West Point graduates found that officers with higher SAT scores and academic ranks were actually less likely to be promoted early or selected for key leadership roles. Instead, the strongest predictor of advancement was a ‘Military Performance’ score, which captured leadership ratings, peer evaluations and physical training results.

This suggests that beyond a baseline of “smart enough,” organisations favour those who fit their leadership mould. In the Army’s case, that meant confident, well-rounded, action-oriented individuals as opposed to abstract thinkers or quiet strategists.

The broader insight is obvious. Promotion isn’t just about intellect. In fact, being book-smart may not count as much as one may think.

---

When intelligence becomes a liability

It sounds counterintuitive, but there seems to be such a thing as being “too smart for your own good”. In some cases, high intelligence can cause one’s downfall.

Highly intelligent people often prefer to do things their own way. They may view others as slower or less capable (referring to them as “stupid”), which can lead to poor collaboration and difficulty bringing colleagues along with them. This tendency can alienate potential allies or leave others in the dark about their thinking and intentions.

They may also be less attuned to the emotions and needs of others. They sometimes struggle to see things from another person’s perspective and become frustrated with those who don’t immediately “get it.” What feels obvious to them may not be obvious to everyone else.

In some cases, intelligence can even be intimidating. This might be because they communicate in abstract or overly complex ways or because others feel nervous about making mistakes around them. In hierarchical environments, being more capable than one’s boss, especially without the humility to temper it, can be politically risky. It may threaten superiors, leading to subtle sidelining or outright exclusion.

---

The cautionary tale of Enron

Corporate history is filled with examples of intelligence gone unchecked. One of the most well-known is Enron.

Enron’s top executives were widely seen as exceptionally smart. Jeff Skilling, for instance, was an ex-McKinsey wunderkind who believed he had perfected the energy markets. Insiders described a culture of intellectual arrogance, captured by a banner in the company’s lobby that read: “THE WORLD’S LEADING COMPANY.” Dissent wasn’t tolerated. Those who “didn’t get it” (meaning, those who questioned or failed to grasp the complexity of Enron’s schemes) were dismissed or mocked.

This mindset created a dangerous internal environment. Smart people believed they were too clever to fail, which led to ethical concerns being brushed aside. In the end, it was that same overconfidence and isolation that led to Enron’s spectacular collapse. The so-called “smartest guys in the room” were ultimately undone by their own intellectual hubris.

So if intelligence isn’t enough, what is?

---

Emotional intelligence as a predictor of career advancement

Research suggests emotional intelligence may be a better indicator of career advancement and leadership effectiveness. This is likely because emotionally intelligent individuals excel at motivating team members, navigating conflicts diplomatically and, more generally, understanding people — whether above them or below them.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the US Supreme Court is a compelling example. She has openly acknowledged that her test scores were unimpressive compared to her Ivy League peers. Yet through grit, courtroom presence and an ability to connect with people — traits more aligned with emotional intelligence — she rose to one of the highest offices in the judiciary.

Unlike raw IQ, whereby the benefits of it may plateau once a role becomes less technical, emotional intelligence can continue to grow and enhance one’s ability to lead larger teams and handle complex, people-driven challenges.

---

Conclusion: intelligence isn’t the be all and end all

This article set out to question a long-held assumption in professional life: that intelligence is a key driver of career success. But as we’ve seen — from office anecdotes to military studies and corporate cautionary tales — beyond a certain threshold, intelligence does little to guarantee promotion.

Traits like political savviness, emotional intelligence and the ability to navigate complex social dynamics tend to play a far greater role. The person with these traits will trump the smartest person in the room when it comes to promotions.

If you found this article insightful, please consider subscribing or sharing it with someone who may find it relevant. These are the conversations we need to be having if we want to redefine what leadership looks like.