Imagine a busy manager working in a multinational company, handling multiple tasks, dealing with unexpected problems, proposing creative solutions, and overall, keeping focused on their business goals. Of course, it is actually their brain that is doing all this, and in fact these sorts of processes are known in psychology and neuroscience as executive functions. And because of their ability to explain high-level control of human behavior, executive functions have become important in most subfields of modern psychology, including industrial and organizational. So, do (cognitive) executive functions explain how well real executives, and other workers function?
Executive functions, as a psychological term, can be classified in into many types: Three that are frequently studied by psychologists are inhibition, working memory, and switching (moving attention to different parts of a task). Providing a sort of proof that these are ‘executive’: It has been shown that people with white-collar jobs are generally better at working memory and switching than people with blue-collar jobs (Eslami et al., 2023).
Furthermore, measures of executive function made with cognitive tests predict supervisor ratings of managers and other white-collar workers very well, but much less so for factory workers (Higgins, et al., 2007). This suggests that workers with more dynamic jobs (such as executives and managers) do have better cognitive executive functions, and that the better those executive functions are, the more successful they are in their professions. Further, it’s not just supervisor ratings. Actual performance can be predicted with executive function tests. For sales personnel, inhibition may be the key- those with the best ability to inhibit their responses on cognitive tests also make the most sales (Pluck et al., 2020).
Interestingly the same tests that predict workplace success also predict performance of adolescent students. One particular test, the Hayling Test, requires research participants to listen to sentences read aloud, and then to complete them by adding the last word. But, the task requires that the participant say a word that makes no sense. This is actually harder that it sounds, and many people make errors, by saying sensible words. For this reason, it is thought of as a test of inhibition. High school students who are good at this have higher grade point average than students who make frequent inhibition errors (Pluck et al., 2019). The same phenomenon is seen with university students, in which good inhibition ability on the Hayling Test predicts higher grade point average (Pluck et al., 2016). The importance of this is that it gives a new way for psychologists to think about the cognitive abilities that predict real-life success. Traditionally, they would use intelligence tests, but cognitive executive function tests appear to be more accurate predictors in both education and the workplace.
The tests used to test cognitive executive functions are in fact often work based. These involve a sort of role play within a scenario. In one, participants are asked to image that they are working in a hotel, and they must deal with multiple different tasks over a 15-minute period, including completing invoices, sorting coins, and alphabetizing name badges for conference guests (Manly et al., 2002). Another test, that we are using here in the Faculty of Psychology, involves a virtual reality office, in which participants have to plan a business meeting, while dealing with expected events, and remembering to do several other daily office tasks too (Jansari, et al., 2014). These business-based executive function tests are proving to be useful because they are both more realistic than traditional tests from cognitive psychology, and they measure organization of behavior beyond that measured by traditional intelligence tests.
Given these close links, and the use of the term ‘executive’ to describe high-level cognitive processes, it might seem that the concept of executive functions originated in industrial and organizational psychology. But no, the origin is actually computing. It seems that early computer scientists faced similar problems of how to organize their programs. They needed something would organize all of the other programs, tell them when to repeat something, and when to stop or to switch to a different activity. The first of these programs, the ‘Automatic Supervisor’ in 1956, was soon developed into another program called the ‘General Motors Executive System’, and these terms were later adopted by cognitive psychologists who developed the first theories of human executive functions (Pluck et al., 2023).
Whether it be control of computers, human cognition, or management of a company, similar principles emerge, such as the need for top-down control of routine tasks, monitoring performance, canceling plans, and making new ones. These are all types of executive control.
So, are strong (cognitive) executive functions the defining feature of those who are successful in management and other white-collar occupations? They certainly seem to help, but we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on cognitive abilities. Motivation and personality probably play equally important roles in determining how well a person functions in their profession. As a striking example, in 2007 a 44-year man was given a brain scan and found to have an abnormal condition in which he had far less brain tissue the most people, and that he may been that way for most of his life (Feuillet et al., 2007). Cognitive testing revealed that his performance IQ (closely related to executive function) was only 70, placing him in the bottom 3% of the population. Nevertheless, he had worked for decades, without problem, as a civil servant. It appears that strong executive functions are useful, but not essential, for administrative and other white-collar occupations.
References
Eslami, A., Nassif, N. T., & Lal, S. (2023). Neuropsychological performance and cardiac autonomic function in blue-and white-collar workers: a psychometric and heart rate variability evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4203.
Feuillet, L., Dufour, H., & Pelletier, J. (2007). Brain of a white-collar worker. The Lancet, 370(9583), 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61127-1
Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. M. (2007). Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality, and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298
Jansari, A. S., Devlin, A., Agnew, R., Akesson, K., Murphy, L., & Leadbetter, T. (2014). Ecological assessment of executive functions: a new virtual reality paradigm. Brain Impairment, 15(2), 71-87.
Manly, T., Hawkins, K., Evans, J., Woldt, K., & Robertson, I. H. (2002). Rehabilitation of executive function: facilitation of effective goal management on complex tasks using periodic auditory alerts. Neuropsychologia, 40(3), 271-281.
Pluck, G., Crespo-Andrade, C., Parreño, P, Haro, K. I., Martínez, M. A. & Pontón, S. C. (2020). Executive functions and intelligent goal-directed behavior: A neuropsychological approach to understanding success using professional sales as a real-life measure. Psychology & Neuroscience, 13(2), 158–175.
Pluck, G., Ruales-Chieruzzi, C. B., Paucar-Guerra, E. J., Andrade-Guimaraes, M. V., & Trueba, A. F. (2016). Separate contributions of general intelligence and right prefrontal neurocognitive functions to academic achievement at university level. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(4), 178-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.002
Pluck, G., Cerone, A., Villagomez-Pacheco, D. (2023). Executive function and intelligent goal-directed behavior: perspectives from psychology, neurology, and computer science. In: Masci, P., Bernardeschi, C., Graziani, P., Koddenbrock, M., Palmieri, M. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2022 Collocated Workshops. SEFM 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13765. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26236-4_27
Pluck, G., Villagomez-Pacheco, D., Karolys, M. I., & Montaño-Córdova, M. E. & Almeida-Meza, P. (2019). Response suppression, strategy application, and working memory in the prediction of academic performance and classroom misbehavior: A neuropsychological approach. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.100121
Author
Dr. Graham Pluck
Lecturer in Cognitive Psychology and JIPP Program
