A. The leader should possess high Intelligence.

B. The reasons for this frequent neglect of intelligence as a prerequisite of leadership are complex.

C. It is certainly true to say that this is more commonly underrated than any other aspect of leadership.

D. There is first, a general misunderstanding of such a phrase as 'of very high intelligence.'

We observe that Sentence A would serve as a proper opening among the given statements. This is mainly because it presents the core argument - the importance of intelligence for leadership. The rest of the discussion revolves around this idea. Sentence C then functions as a follow-up clarification: after asserting that leaders should have high intelligence, C introduces the idea that intelligence, despite its importance, is often underrated relative to other leadership qualities. This builds directly on A by elaborating on the paradox: even though intelligence is crucial, it is not given the due emphasis in leadership discussions. 

Sentence B then picks up that thought (of intelligence being underrated) by suggesting why this critical trait is likely neglected. It indicates that complex factors are likely at play and in this way, it sets the stage for discussing this complexity subsequently. In this context, Sentence D offers one specific reason for this neglect - a misinterpretation of what “high intelligence” truly means. This sentence elaborates on one of the “complex reasons” mentioned in B, thus neatly concluding the logical progression of ideas.

Hence, the best arrangement here would be A-C-B-D (Option B).