Crystallized intelligence represents one’s lifetime of intellectual attainment, while fluid intelligence is defined as mental flexibility as shown by the ability to solve problems in novel situations. Given these definitions I will provide two examples for both intelligences in specific situations that I witnessed, and I will explain why both are essential to the leadership process. It is essential to note that I know several examples of leadership at work, when people who do not have essential knowledge in the certain area have mental flexibility enough to convince others and to solve current problems easier. The other type of people is those, who gain their experience, get knowledge and crystallize their intelligence, and can be considered leaders. I know people who are charismatic, who are flexible in their thinking and who can respond quickly to the situations- sometimes they are considered leaders, however they do not have enough knowledge for it. Another example are people who are wise, experienced, who have their special approach to the business, and they are not so visible as those who have just mental flexibility. These people have crystallized intelligence, which is much more valuable. This is fundamental in life and makes it easier to live. As well, creativity is also present in both types of people, as creativity has become a modern trend, as well as the innovative approaches to everything.
Leadership has become extremely popular and in demand in the modern world. Leader is a person in a group (organization) who uses a large, recognized authority, having influence, which manifests as control actions. A member of the group, whom he recognizes the right to make responsible decisions in important situations for him, as it is the most authoritative person, playing a central role in the joint operation and management of relationships within the group. A true leader does not have any recognized outside the group of power and it has no formal responsibilities.
If the head of the group and its leader are not the same person, the relationship between them may contribute to the effectiveness of collaboration and the harmonization of the group’s life or, alternatively, to acquire the character of conflict, which ultimately depends on the level of group development. For example, in pro-social and anti-social associations, as a rule, the functions of a leader and manager have different group members. In this case most often a leader in the community that the level of socio-psychological development is a team member is responsible mainly for preserving and maintaining a positive emotional atmosphere in the group, while the head, being aimed primarily at improving the effectiveness of group activities, often does not account for how this will affect the socio-psychological climate community.
In corporate groups as well as in high socio-psychological level of development, as a rule, the functions of a leader and manager are assigned to the same person. At the same time the base of leadership and management in these two types of highly psychologically groups are fundamentally different in nature. Thus, if the corporate groupings match status positions of the leader and the head is associated with an explicit priority of the relations of power at the expense of emotional relationships, pro-social in the high-level type of team it is an emotional “makeup” of power often serves as an essential foundation for the implementation of formal authority. Many modern scholars emphasize the role of followers had grown leader in the modern world.