Ants Know How to Make Their Teammates Better, Do You? Inclusive Intelligence is the New IQ

Did you know supercolonies of ants span massive swaths of the globe? One colony in Europe crosses 3,728 miles. However, out of the 12,000 known species of ants, only about 20 have shown the behavior of forming supercolonies. Instead of fighting with ants from other nests, these special ants are tolerant. Separate colonies combine into supercolonies where individuals can travel freely amongst nests without incident. No matter how far apart the nests are in the supercolonies, if you’re a member of the supercolony you get the same friendly treatment. But if a supercolony ant encounters an ant who is not a member of the supercolony, it will try to destroy it.

This behavior shows the supercolonies have high collective intelligence, where individuals combine their efforts to achieve a common goal. But the ants don’t stop there. New research argues that ants also exhibit inclusive intelligence, which is based on the individual’s ability to make their teammates better.

Ants, like humans, can organize to lift something together that’s heavier than any one individual could carry on their own. However, ants might be able to move a couch down a flight of stairs with less shouting and collisions than humans. Researchers Gelblum, Pinkoviezky, Fonio, Ghosh, Gov and Feinerman found that ants carrying a Cheerio switched leadership positions every 10 to 20 seconds. The ant that was the first to understand how to get around an obstacle became that moment’s leader. Once that ant in charge decided which way to go, that is the way the Cheerio went, without any argument.

Biologists call the drive to join groups eusocial behavior. This means individuals perform altruistic acts for the best interest of the group. It is a new way of understanding evolution that combines the theory of individual selection, where individuals compete against each other, with group selection, where groups compete with each other. This shift towards performing altruistic acts, rather than selfish ones, creates the most advanced level of social behavior. Ants are part of a special group of creatures that show this behavior, along with bees, termites and humans. But perhaps, it could be argued, some of those creatures are more sophisticated in their teamwork methods than others.

Researchers found that the ants “optimize the efficiency of this collective behaviour in a way that works to minimize the duration of transport.” If we all work together, we can eat dinner sooner. This is an example of collective intelligence, where groups of individuals work together to solve problems. In order for this coordination to happen, the ants needed to communicate efficiently, explain researchers. This allows for seamless switching between individual and collective action. Once the leader no longer had the most relevant information, it returned to being part of the group’s muscle.

Those groups of ants demonstrated a complete commitment from each individual to achieving the group’s goal — get the Cheerio to the nest. Each individual’s job was to use their talents at just the right time, being a leader when necessary and a follower when needed. To speak up when they knew their idea would move the group in the right direction. No power struggle necessary. Feierman, the study’s lead author, explained:

“The individual ant has the idea of how to pass an obstacle but lacks the muscle power to move the load. The group is there to amplify the leader’s strength so that she can actually implement her idea.”

High performing groups, both in the ant and human spheres, exhibit inclusive intelligence, which we call the New Inclusion Quotient or the New IQ. On these teams, individuals maximize the talents of their fellow teammates in order to achieve the group’s goal. Teams with high levels of the New IQ implement practices that foster fairness, cooperation, support, openness, and empowerment. As we know from Q theory, diverse teams contain the ingredients for innovation. But that potential remains untapped unless teams cultivate inclusion. When we include differences in a friendly, flexible, and fair way, making our colleagues feel welcome and important — only then will our teams thrive. The New IQ is the next evolution of intelligence in organizational, team, and individual performance.

But wouldn’t it just be easier to go it alone? To avoid having to cultivate inclusive intelligence and altruism altogether? Alas, human beings need to live in groups in order to survive.

Despite what rugged individualism espouses, our existence depends on our membership in cooperative, interdependent groups. These groups allow for the division of labor, resource sharing and mutual protection. But all of those benefits come at a cost. Each individual has to contribute their resources and effort to the group. They need to put the group’s needs ahead of their own at times, in a reciprocal give and take. Trust is foundational for this to work. You need to know that your sacrifices will be returned in kind. This evolutionary desire for inclusion is balanced by a competing and balancing desire — for differentiation.

Our social identity and sense of self depends on differentiation, the feeling of being an individual. Different and special from the people around us. These two opposing internal motivations, toward inclusion and differentiation, keep each other in check in what is called Brewer’s Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. When we lose our sense of self because we’ve become too subsumed in a group, we seek ways to differentiate and regain individuality. If, on the other hand, we become too differentiated and separated from groups, our desire for inclusion increases. It is a delicate equilibrium.

People can find this balance already baked-in with membership in “moderately inclusive (optimally distinct) groups,” explain researchers Leonardelli, Pickett and Brewer. Optimally distinct means that the group has a shared identity and is the right size so members feel both inclusion and differentiation. The researchers argue that we choose our social identities to achieve a balance between inclusion and differentiation, and these identities change based on context. For example, for an Mexican-American, identifying as American while in the United States may be too large of an identity to offer enough differentiation. Whereas identifying as Mexican-American while traveling in France is not necessary. Just identifying as American may be sufficient to meet both inclusion and differentiation needs. Different context, different social identity.

Leonardelli et al explain that people identify with “salient numerical minorities” because they meet the needs for inclusion and differentiation. Large enough to offer much-needed communal support and unique enough to sustain the feeling of being an individual. While this human inclination opens up the potential for conflict along faultlines, with the right strategies, it can instead open up human societies and businesses for opportunity and innovation. We can work with our needs instead of suppressing or ignoring them..

Cultivating inclusive intelligence doesn’t mean you lose your sense of identity or specialness. Quite the contrary. Giving and taking in a reciprocal way, while at the same time deepening our unique skills, helps balance both our foundational needs to be included and to be different. Maybe the ants are onto something.