Intelligence theories by gardner and sternberg:
There are different approaches to understanding intelligence. The psychometric view is the most traditional one.
According to this approach, there is a single intelligence, which is often called general intelligence. Every
individual is born with a certain intelligence or potential intelligence, which is difficult to be changed.
Psychologists can assess one's intelligence (IQ) by means of short-answer tests and other purer measures such as
the time it takes to react to a flashing light or the presence of a certain pattern of brain waves (Gardner, 2004).
But the traditional IQ tests did not satisfy the researchers, so they developed a number of alternative theories, all
of which suggest that intelligence is the result of a number of independent abilities that uniquely contribute to
human performance. These theories suggest that rather than being fixed, unitary, and predetermined, intelligence
is modifiable, multi-faceted, and capable of development (Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978;
Yekovich, 1994; cited in Campbell, 2000, p. 8). Some of these theories have been summarized in the following
Robert Sternberg in his view of intelligence proposed three types of intelligence: 1) Componential Intelligence
(analytical thinking): academic abilities to compare, evaluate and solve problems. 2) Experiential Intelligence
(creativity and insight): the ability to invent, discover and theorize. 3) Practical Intelligence (street smarts):
contextual abilities to adapt to the environment (Brown, 2000; Chastain, 1988). This theory of intelligence
claims that intelligent behavior stems from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities and that
these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular socio-cultural
contexts (Sternberg, 1988).
Gardner, in his MI theory, proposes that human intelligence has multiple dimensions that must be acknowledged
and developed in education. He notes that traditional IQ or intelligence tests (such as Stanford-Binet test)
measure only logic and language, but there are other equally important types of intelligence (Richrads &
Rodgers, 2001).
According to Gardner (1993), intelligence is a biopsychological potential. Intelligences cannot be seen or
counted. They are used to process information and can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or
create products that are of value in a culture. These potentials’ activation depends upon the values of a particular
culture, the opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made by individuals and/or their
families, schoolmasters, and others.
3. Multiple Intelligences Theory
Gardner's MI theory posits that human beings possess at least eight intelligences, to a greater or lesser extent.
They are as follow (Armstrong, 2009, pp.6-7):
Once this broader and more pragmatic perspective was taken, the concept of intelligence began to lose its
mystique and became a functional concept that could be seen working in people’s lives in a variety of ways.
Gardner provided a means of mapping the broad range of abilities that humans possess by grouping their
capabilities into the following eight comprehensive categories or “intelligences”:
Linguistic: The capacity to use words effectively, whether orally (e.g., as a storyteller, orator, or politician) or in
writing (e.g., as a poet, playwright, editor, or journalist). This intelligence includes the ability to manipulate the
syntax or structure of language, the phonology or sounds of language, the semantics or meanings of language,
and the pragmatic dimensions or practical uses of language. Some of these uses include rhetoric (using language
to convince others to take a specific course of action), mnemonics (using language to remember information),
explanation (using language to inform), and metalanguage (using language to talk about itself).
Logical-mathematical: The capacity to use numbers effectively (e.g., as a mathematician, tax accountant, or
statistician) and to reason well (e.g., as a scientist, computer programmer, or logician). This intelligence includes
sensitivity to logical patterns and relationships, statements and propositions (if-then, cause-effect), functions, and
other related abstractions. The kinds of processes used in the service of logical-mathematical intelligence include
categorization, classification, inference, generalization, calculation, and hypothesis testing.
Spatial: The ability to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately (e.g., as a hunter, scout, or guide) and to
perform transformations upon those perceptions (e.g., as an interior decorator, architect, artist, or inventor). This
intelligence involves sensitivity to color, line, shape, form, space, and the relationships that exist between these
elements. It includes the capacity to visualize, to graphically represent visual or spatial ideas, and to orient
oneself appropriately in a spatial matrix.
Bodily-kinesthetic: Expertise in using one’s whole body to express ideas and feelings (e.g., as an actor, a mime,
an athlete, or a dancer) and facility in using one’s hands to produce or transform things (e.gsculptor, mechanic, or surgeon). This intelligence includes specific physical skills such as coordination, balance,
dexterity, strength, flexibility, and speed, as well as proprioceptive, tactile, and haptic capacities.
Musical: The capacity to perceive (e.g., as a music aficionado), discriminate (e.g., as a music critic), transform
(e.g., as a composer), and express (e.g., as a performer) musical forms. This intelligence includes sensitivity to
the rhythm, pitch or melody, and timbre or tone color of a musical piece. One can have a figural or “top-down”
understanding of music (global, intuitive), a formal or “bottom-up” understanding (analytic, technical), or both.
Interpersonal: The ability to perceive and make distinctions in the moods, intentions, motivations, and feelings
of other people. This can include sensitivity to facial expressions, voice, and gestures; the capacity for
discriminating among many different kinds of interpersonal cues; and the ability to respond effectively to those
cues in some pragmatic way (e.g., to influence a group of people to follow a certain line of action).
Intrapersonal: Self-knowledge and the ability to act adaptively on the basis of that knowledge. This intelligence
includes having an accurate picture of oneself (one’s strengths and limitations); awareness of inner moods,
intentions, motivations, temperaments, and desires; and the capacity for self-discipline, self-understanding, and
Naturalist: Expertise in the recognition and classification of the numerous species—the flora and fauna—of an
individual’s environment. This also includes sensitivity to other natural phenomena (e.g., cloud formations,
mountains, etc.) and, in the case of those growing up in an urban environment, the capacity to discriminate
among inanimate objects such as cars, sneakers, and CD covers.
Daniel Golman introduced the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI). He claimed that efficient mental or
cognitive processing is necessary for controlling even a handful of core emotions- anger, fear, enjoyment, love,
disgust, and others. More to the point, Golaman compared the rational mind with the emotional mind. In
comparing the rational mind with the emotional mind, Golman argued that the emotional mind is far quicker and
acts without even pausing to consider what it is doing. He stated that the quickness of emotional mind prevents a
deliberate, analytic reflection that is the sign of the thinking mind (Golman, 1995).
The theoretical framework of the present study is based on Gardner's MI theory. This theory has a positive and
expansive view towards intelligence (Campbell, 2000).
4. Organizational Effectiveness
Peter Drucker (1990) observed that the nonprofit institution in America is in many ways a “growth industry.”
Accompanying this expansion has been a growing body of literature prescribing methods for increasing the
effectiveness of nonprofit organizations, their managers, and their boards. But research on these matters remains
sparse (Penn, 1991; Powell, 1987; Green & Griesingev, 1996).
According to Drucker (1974, p. 4 3, “Efficiency is concerned with doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the
right things.” Whereas this definition of effectiveness is often cited, there is a lack of consensus about how to
operationalize the concept (for example, Anspach, 1991; Cameron and Whetten, 1983; Cook and Brown, 1990;
Hall, 1991; Herman, 1990; Kanter and Brinkerhoff, 1981; Kraft, 1991; Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983; Seashore,
1983; Seashore and Yuchtman, 1967; Spray, 1976; Steers, 1977). If effectiveness is doing the right things, then
who determines what is right, what constitutes the right things, and how they are to be measured? The literature
on organizational effectiveness contains a variety of competing perspectives. Indeed, the very concept of
effectiveness has been challenged on the grounds that multiple constituencies often cannot agree on the factors
or weights underlying such evaluative judgments (Green & Griesingev, 1996).
5. Major Approaches in Assessing Organizational Effectiveness
Despite all obstacles to a consensual definition of organizational effectiveness and to a consistent procedure for
assessing the concept not all assessment of organizational effectiveness have been done in a completely random
fashion. Four different approaches or models have been used by evaluators to define and assesses organizational
effectiveness (see Table 1). The first and the most widely used is approach which links effectiveness to the
accomplishment of organizational goal and called Goal model (Price, 1972sws). The second approach for the
effectiveness is called the system- resource approach. In this view organizations are not assumed to posses goals,
nor is goal accomplishment a relevant consideration. Rather organizations are effective insofar as they acquire
needed resources for system maintenance (Yutchman and Seashore, 1967).

Life 8.1 of 10 on the basis of 1049 Review.