Integrative Intelligence

Integrative Intelligence (II) is a type of Intelligence which signify an ability of an entity to apply oneself to holistically interrelate all aspects, all perspectives and all purposes of other entities in one’s adopted context with an a priori intention to achieve a Coherent View (without discarding any aspect, perspective and purpose in that adopted context). Entities can be various such as an individual, an organization or a system. Applying oneself refers to all the instruments such as perception, memory and experience, that we use for deciding upon an action.
Although the term first appeared in a 2015 Forbes article by Kevin Cashman, it gained popularity in the 2017 book by the title “Understanding Integrative Intelligence”, written by the Dutch psychologist and economist Sharda S. Nandram & Dutch Organizational and Sports psychologist Wim A.J. Keizer together with an Indian management researcher with an engineering background, Puneet K. Bindlish. Kevin Cashman sees Integrative Intelligence as the New IQ. After studying 230 definitions of Intelligence Nandram et al. derived at the conclusion of a lack of ontological clarity of the construct of intelligence. They came across its use in several contexts. With the term Integrative Intelligence they cover both the original and derived contextual labels of intelligence. In their view Integrative Intelligence is harmony between Individual and Systems Intelligence.
History
The term "Integrative Intelligence" seems first to have appeared in a Forbes article 3 August 2015 written by Kevin Cashman entitled: The New IO: Integrative intelligence. The first academic article seems first to have appeared as a book chapter in an edited book published by Springer. There the authors Bindlish, Nandram and Joshi introduced Integrative Intelligence as the way forward to cope with VUCA. The first book on this construct, entitled “Understanding Integrative Intelligence” by the co-founders Nandram, Bindlish and Keizer brought ontological clarity to the original construct of Intelligence. According to them, Integrative Intelligence can be manifested in organizations by several organizing frameworks and it can serve as the foundation for organizing. When studying the Dutch Healthcare organization Buurtzorg Nederland, Nandram founded the approach of Integrating Simplification Theory for explaining the disrupting organizational innovation of Buurtzorg. In this book entitled , the Author shows how an organization can organize itself by a focus on three principles: needing, rethinking and common sensing. These principles are further enriched by Integrative Intelligence in a book chapter.
Integrative Intelligence is based on an Integrative approach with an Integrative Paradigm. Therefore, realizing a Coherent View is the end desired goal. Such a paradigm has been conceptualized and applied earlier for the themes of leadership, coaching, sustainability, enterprising behavior and entrainment.
Ontology
Integrative Intelligence (II) has the similar genus as other types of intelligence such as general intelligence, multiple intelligence, Universal intelligence, machine intelligence or emotional intelligence. The genus is the ability towards a desired end goal. II differs from others intelligence types in some ways. In II, the desired goal is realizing a Coherent View while in other types the end goal is related to a certain individual skill development. In II, the holistic interrelationship towards the end goal is therefore important which makes someone or a system striving for a Coherent View dependent of others’ efforts and viewpoints. Another distinction is that II is observer-centric. This gives the space for including several kinds of knowing which may not be directly externally observable. Yet another distinction is that II does not claim a universal approach to understand something, to solve an issue or to take a decision.
Integrated Intelligence
Some researchers distinguish Integrated Intelligence. This type of Intelligence has the aim to introduce and include technologies in all kinds of human tasks as it is based on the assumption that human experience is interconnected with technologies and machines. The Carnegie University focuses on the question how to bring technology to facilitate human activities. Intelligence manifested in machines, devices, systems artificially is therefore being integrated in human live as the end goal. Whereas Integrative Intelligence has the Coherent View as end goal. And Intelligence may be manifested in different ways such as technology or organizational systems with rules and regulations. Another manifestation could be the natural flow of a phenomena or intrinsic meaningful approaches for a specific context which the actor has adopted.
Difference between concepts: Integrated and Integrative
Some may confuse the term integrated with integrative. Based on its usage in general integrated can be seen as an approach similar to an assembly line where methods are being mixed proportionally. Each person or system that is involved is given appropriate weight-ages. This appears as a synthetic unity as could be found in a democratic system as well.
An example of a domain where the term integrated is being used is integrated reporting.  it is a response to address the integrated thinking a company follows with the attempt to display that its efforts are focused on more than only financial concerns. The idea behind is that the financial factors that are used on a balance sheet only show part of the reality of the value of a company. Its value depends on factors that may seem intangible such as people, energy security, natural resources, intellectual property.
Integrative refers to finding a coherent view without discarding any perspective, purpose or aspect of a particular context which one finds significant and which he has adopted. Therefore, a person, organization or society (the entity) will feel responsible for this adopted context only. In practice this implies that the role of individuals and their views and observations are important. They will not tend towards a one shoe fits all approach but they will try to maintain the uniqueness of each context. Some practitioners or scholars use integrative such as in integrative medicine while they mean integrated medicine or in integrative law while they mean integrated law.
Criticism
If reaching a Coherent View in the adopted context is the end goal this should be measurable in order to nurture it in different settings such as at schools, in institutions and societies. The problem with II is its aim to include tangible and intangible indicators and part of it lies in the subjective domain. For example, realizing a Coherent View can happen when a person contemplate on the viewpoints of those who are part of his adopted context. These viewpoints may not be that evidently present or put in words.They may need to be contemplated upon. In some cultures contemplation may be accepted as a way of knowing while in other cultures it may not be the case. This deviates from the normative thinking on intelligence as a measurable thing. The intangible indicators are not accessible with a third person approach of research and measurement which we are used to in scholarly approaches.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu