Persistence is the New IQ Test

A Question of Intelligence

What is intelligence? One definition scientists are applying is the ability to keep moving towards a goal when obstacles appear in the way. This extends the idea of intelligence beyond organisms and encapsulates machine learning. For practical purposes, it means we should hire people who can adapt, learn and still deliver.

That is why, when you are hiring, intelligence is less about credentials and more about observable traits that predict performance under pressure. Once a candidate has the baseline skills for the role, three characteristics become decisive. I have always sought to hire those who demonstrate persistence, curiosity and collective drive.

Persistence is what shows up after the first setback. It is the willingness to try another approach, to do the unglamorous work and to finish. In interviews, you can determine persistence in how someone describes difficulty. Do they take ownership of the outcome? Do they talk in specifics about what they tried, what failed and what they changed? People who have built anything worthwhile have a few stories of friction, rejection, delays, or bugs that refused to die. The point is not the drama. The point is that they kept going and they iterated.

Curiosity is the engine of growth. It shows up as disciplined interest, not random questions. Curious candidates want to understand the “why” behind a role, the business model, the customer constraints and the trade-offs. They probe and clarify. Curiosity also reveals itself in how people learn. Has a candidate taught themselves a tool, improved a process, or gone beyond the minimum because they wanted to understand? Curiosity is a risk-control mechanism, which reduces expensive mistakes because curious people check before charging ahead.

Collective drive is what I sometimes call enthusiasm, but it is not loudness or ego. It is the ability to bring other people along. You can be highly capable and still fail if you leave a trail of confusion, resentment, or silence behind you. Collective drive shows up as clear communication, positive energy directed at the work rather than personal status, and a bias toward alignment. These are the people who make others better. They explain decisions, share context and keep the team moving in the right direction.

Home Truths at Work

I first noticed how uneven these traits can be across contexts at home. My daughter used to stare at maths puzzles and, after a few questions, decide the subject was not for her. In English class, she would dive deep into a novel, pulling out themes and meanings, including ones the author may never have intended. Her ability was not fixed. It was tied to persistence, curiosity and interest, which varied by subject. That matters because workplaces are full of “subjects” people respond to differently. Hiring is often the first place you see it.

This is also why employers are increasingly cautious about treating education as a reliable signal of basics. This year, UC San Diego reported that over 900 incoming freshmen were placed into remedial maths based on its placement assessment. A large share of that group assessed below what you would expect from middle school standards. You can debate the causes and this is not proof of a national trend on its own. It is, however, a warning that credentials do not guarantee fundamentals. If you run a small business, you cannot afford to discover missing basics after you have already hired.

In uncertain markets, this is one reason employers often shift toward proof over potential. It is not an attack on young workers. It is a rational response to weaker signalling. When you cannot trust the label, you test the product.

From Acceptable to Excellent

I am in Ahmedabad at the moment working with our talent acquisition team on the design of our hiring process. Part of our business supplies skilled software engineers to Western fintech companies. We receive job descriptions that emphasise technical requirements, and of course those matter. Most of the engineers we screen have at least five years’ experience. Most of them can do the job on paper.

The difference between acceptable and excellent lies in communication, problem solving and independence. It is whether someone can take an ambiguous requirement, ask the right questions, propose options and deliver without needing constant direction. An absence of these traits is why clients reject candidates who look perfect on a CV.

Our screening focus has sharpened. We still validate core competence, but we spend more time pressure-testing the three traits.

For persistence, we look for evidence of hard delivery. These include projects with constraints, deadlines, stakeholders and failures that had to be recovered. We ask what went wrong, what they did next and what they would do differently. We listen for iteration and ownership, not blame.

For curiosity, we watch whether they engage with the role and the context. Do they ask about the customer, the product, the constraints and the team? Or do they treat the interview like a transaction? Curiosity is correlated with learning speed and with fewer avoidable errors later.

For collective drive, we assess how they communicate. Can they explain complex work simply? Do they collaborate without dominating? Do they show respect for the people downstream from their decisions? A leader can be intensely goal-seeking, but if they pursue the goal while leaving others behind, that is not enthusiasm. It is ego. Ruthless single-mindedness can produce breakthroughs in narrow domains, but in most businesses it creates churn, misalignment and silent failure.

If you are a small business owner, the lesson is straightforward. Treat hiring as a risk decision. Test the basics with a short work-sample task. Then hire for the traits that predict getting unstuck. These are persistence to push through friction, curiosity to learn and adjust, and collective drive to keep the team together. Skills get someone into the role. These traits determine whether they deliver when the obstacles arrive.

Questions to Ask and Answer

1. How do I assess people’s persistence, curiosity and collective drive?

2. Is my hiring process consistent in assessing these qualities?

3. Do my assessments cover how as well as whether a goal was achieved?