Gender in the Executive Suite

Gender at the Executive Level
By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.

The question of whether males and females differ in their information processing profiles (i.e. strategic profiles) periodically arises. In other words, do males and females favor different approaches in addressing work situations?

The Organizational Engineering Institute maintains a database of Strategic Profiles obtained from “I Opt” Surveys (www.iopt.com). Gender is irrelevant to the “I Opt” process and thus is not explicitly available. However, people tend to designate their children using gender specific names. Mary reliably designates a female and John a male. This social convention allows the database to be divided into male and female components.

Prior research shows that different organization levels tend to favor particular strategic profiles (e.g., the CEO Insights blog or Dr. Ashley Fields doctoral dissertation). Thus an effective analysis requires that genders be analyzed within a common organizational range. Of particular interest are the higher organizational levels. These chart the course for the firm and thus affect the well being of everyone employed. Differences at this level could have a profound effect.


DATA
Executive level people were divided into two groups. The first are corporate level VPs. This includes “C” level executives (e.g., CFO, COO, CIO, etc.) but is not limited to them. It also captures VPs who head entire areas within a firm (e.g., a large geographic region).

The second group consists of the Director/Manager level people. This is the “middle management" of a firm. People in this group can head very large functions but share the characteristic of reporting to the Corporate VP level.

Within these groups gender was determined by reviewing the name of each person and assigning them to the male or female category. Names that did not clearly indicate gender were excluded. These included names like Chris, Pat, Willie, Dana, Shannon and similar entries. This culling process caused a loss of about 14% of the population.

Table 1

Table 1 shows the results of the categorization process. The data does not answer the question of why there is a proportional discrepancy between genders. It is probably due to a combination of causes. For example, people at the Corporate VP level probably began their careers in the 1960s and 1970s. A lower proportion of females entering a career tract in 1970 would translate into fewer female Corporate VPs today. In addition, these females had to overcome cultural barriers to advancement. In other words, the pioneering females of the 1970s and 1980s had a harder row to hoe than their male counterparts. This may have caused a disproportionate career casualty rate.

There may have been other factors. However, the situation seems to be trending toward equality. The 33% of females in the Director/Manager role will undoubtedly migrate to the Corporate VP level in future years. When they do, the proportion of female Corporate VPs will rise.

The roughly equal proportion of males and females in colleges today suggest that the process is continuing. People graduating today will be entering management ranks in 5 to 10 years. As they do a rough gender balance will begin to appear in the corporate hierarchy. The process is rather like environmental remediation. It takes time for native grasses to displace cultivated growth. It happens over time, not overnight.

The inevitability of the process is not at question. The real question is whether females are bringing with them an entirely different approach to organizational conduct. If they are it could foretell a fundamental shift in our business institutions. If they are not, it probably means a simple strengthening of our institutions. Making full use of an unused half of the human population would be bound to elevate the standards of the “average” executive.

GENDER AT THE CORPORATE VP LEVEL
Graphic 1 shows the distribution of male and female Corporate VPs across all of the "I Opt" Strategic Style dimensions.

Graphic 1

A glance at the profile of males and females suggests that both genders are virtually identical in their overall approach. A statistical test confirms that there is no significant difference between the genders. If there is a bias in hiring, retention and promotion it does not extend to the way issues are approached. On average, both genders are focused on gathering the same level of information (input), tend to issue the same kind of response (output) and engage the same steps (process) as their male counterparts (e.g., degree of risk, goals, use of power, etc.).

There are slight differences that do not rise to the level of statistical significance but are suggestive. One is the kind of action females at the top of firms are likely to take. Graphic 2 shows the distribution along the decisive (RS) and methodical (LP) action dimension.

Graphic 2
CORPORATE VP ACTION ORIENTATION

While certainly not definitive, it appears that there is a bit of a tendency for these pioneering females to adopt something of a forceful, quick paced posture (RS). They are also a bit less inclined to use a deliberate, careful and risk averse stance (LP). This posture, if it is "really" in the distribution, would serve to set them apart and probably help break through the glass ceilings in place during the 1970s and 1980s.

GENDER AT THE DIRECTOR/MANAGER LEVEL
Graphic 3 shows the strategic style distribution of “up and comers.” These people likely began their careers in the 1980s and 1990s. The females in this group benefited from the work of the pioneers who blazed the trail. The differences between genders are so small that percentages had to be expressed in tenths to distinguish them.

Graphic 3

For all practical purposes the genders are indistinguishable. The correlation between the genders is 100%. At least in terms of the way the two groups approach the issues that they confront, there is no gender difference. Even more impressive is to look at the two groups in terms of the strength with which they subscribe to each individual style. This is shown in Graphic 4.

Graphic 4

DIRECTOR/MANAGER STYLE STRENGTH DETAIL

Not only are the averages virtually identical, but the distribution of style strength between the genders is identical. Literally as well as figuratively, corporations appear to be applying exactly the same criteria to males and females in terms of how they are expected to process the information that they use in the discharge of their responsibilities.

GENDER SUMMARY
On an aggregate basis, the data suggest that a corner has been turned. The likely outcome is that the business institutions of American society will be strengthened as a result. There have been no “concessions” made at an information processing level for females entering the executive ranks. This means that more talent will be competing for high levels. The people “making the cut” are likely to be, on the average, of higher quality as a result of this more intense winnowing process.

Does this mean that there is no difference between males and females? Of course not. There are real gender differences in terms of physiology, chemistry and cultural factors among many other things. These differences are likely to cause a sensitivity to different variables than might be visible in a purely male hierarchy. However, those variables will be run through exactly the same process as a male would apply had they been sensitive to those variables.

This last factor could provide another basis for improvement of the American business institutions. These added variables are just as real and important as those visible to males. Introducing them into the equation is likely to produce outcomes that are even more completely optimized for the society to which they will be applied.

This analysis was based on hard data. It was collected for other purposes and thus contains no collection or interview bias. The results of this analysis can probably be trusted.

“Vive la difference! Similitude de La de Viva!”

CEO Insights - October 2006

The "I Opt" profile of the average CEOs should be of no interest to an existing CEO. Their way is the "right" one. It got them to the pinnacle of the firm and will likely serve them well in that capacity. The CEO's approach should matter to those who need to engage the CEO, who advise him/her or who aspire to be a CEO. For these people this knowledge can be vital.

Professional Communications, Inc. (PCI) has a large database that includes CEO "I Opt" scores. CEOs have been contrasted to other levels in the firm in earlier research blogs. This blog looks at how different CEO’s are from each other.

THE AVERAGE CEO
Graphic 1 shows the average of the 98 CEOs in the "I Opt" database. The average CEO's interest appears to center on producing creative options and on acting to secure them.

Graphic 1

The average CEO’s RI (Relational Innovator) style is dominant. It is geared to plotting a course for the firm. The CEO seizes on new insights and explores what they might mean to the firm. How a new insight might fit into the business system is quickly outlined. A collegial atmosphere tends to surround the CEO when operating in this mode. The CEO is open to changes, modification and elaboration. A vision of what might be is being created.

Not every issue yields to the RI strategy. Even when it does, the creative process will sooner or later be exhausted. The CEO then shifts to their next most favored strategy, the Reactive Stimulator (RS). At this point talk is over. It is now the time to "do." The CEO's focus changes from what to do to when it will be done. Collegial give and take is replaced by authoritative direction. Milestones are set and commitments sought. Focused action is the CEO’s interest.

The world is not linear. Neither is the CEO's approach. They bounce back and forth between their preferred strategies. The combination catalyzes the adjustments the firm needs to navigate an ever-changing environment. The average CEO is a creative “doer.”

The “take home” from the above is that if you want to engage an average CEO, bring something creative to the table. Attach some kind of action proposal (RS) to it and be ready to move if it is accepted. Having some analytical HA material available explaining why a course has been selected is probably advisable but it should not be stressed. The least important thing is laying out exactly how things are to be done.


NON-PROFIT CEOs
Sixteen of the 98 CEOs in the "I Opt" database head non-profit or government (state and federal) agencies. Non-profits face more nebulous missions than firms in the profit-sector. There is no clear “bottom line.” Market feedback is slower and less clear-cut. These differences reflect themselves in the CEO’s profile as shown in Graphic 2.

Graphic 2

Non-profit CEOs favor the RI (creativity) strategic style but with a bit less intensity. Less defined goals make figuring out how a new idea “fits in” more difficult. A slower market feedback means less reliance can be placed on decisive action (RS). Too much damage can accumulate before a problem is known. In response the secondary strategy shifts to the analytical HA. Initiatives are more likely to be analyzed before being acted upon. Getting it done right is more important than being first to market.

All of the secondary strategies lie close together in strength. This is testimony to the nature of mission. The advantage of one strongly dominant secondary style is less clear cut. Like other CEOs the non-profit CEO is plotting a course in an uncertain environment. They are doing it more cautiously because they have to.

The “take home” from this mini-analysis is that the non-profit CEO can be engaged with creativity. However, the process of deciding what (if anything) to do will be longer. There simply are more things to consider. The balanced secondary styles mean that they may appear more “reasonable” than their profit-sector equivalents. They will seriously consider a wider range of proposals. The cost is elongated discussion and slower decisions.

Keep in mind this is mini-analysis is based on averages. There are non-profits with explicit goals and fast feedback. This means that there are non-profit CEOs who use strategic patterns similar to the profit-making sector. But these people will not be the typical non-profit CEO.


LARGE FIRM CEOs
Larger firms tend to face complex issues and their decisions usually involve more stakeholders. The 82 profit-sector CEO’s in the database can be divided by size. Twenty-three have revenue of over $100 million. This should result in a different strategic profile—and on average it does.

Graphic 3

Graph 3 shows the style distribution with the non-profits excluded. Large-firm CEOs appear less willing to take decisive action and more inclined to subject initiatives to analysis before acting. Graphic 4 shows that smaller firms are more likely to have CEOs who are prepared to act more aggressively. Large firm CEO's are also prepared to act but none occupy an extreme position. This reduces the overall RS average of large firm CEO shown above in Graphic 3.

Graphic 4

The analytical HA offers a similar story but on the other side. Graphic 5 shows that the large firm CEOs are seldom found at the "very low" HA level. They have been shifted to the "low" level. This move has the effect of increasing the large firm CEO's average HA score. In other words, the higher overall HA is due to fewer people in the very low category rather than to more people in the higher ones.

Graphic 5

The difference in large and smaller firm CEO profiles lies in the extremes. Large-firm CEOs are inclined to cluster in a band in the middle of the spectrum. It is likely due to the nature of the decisions being made. Complex decisions combined with multiple stakeholders probably favor moderate people in the CEO chair of larger firms.

Strategies that work for the CEOs of smaller firms are likely to be transportable to larger firms. The CEOs are equally interested in creative ideas. Their response to an initiative is likely to be more moderate but of the same character. In terms of decision-making information flows, what works at one CEO level will probably work at another.


BANTUM FIRM CEOs
A 27-person segment of the profit-sector database consists of firms with less than $10 million in revenues. These firms live in a more precarious world. Their leaders might be expected to be sensitive to different information flows than their larger cousins. This is not the case.

Graphic 6

The CEOs of the smallest firms look just like their larger brethren in terms of the structure of their information processing profile. They place highest value on creativity (RI) and are quick to action (RS). But there is a difference and it lies in the detail.

Graph 7 shows that the RS component is not linear. There seem to be two kinds of bantum firm CEOs. One set is relatively conservative in the use of decisive action. The other is aggressive. This may be due to the variety of different businesses (i.e., from janitorial firms to system integrators) in the sample. Or it may be that different strategies are equally viable. The charts do not answer this question.

Graphic 7

The CEOs of the smallest firms also put less stock in creativity (RI) than do both larger firm and non-profit CEO's. They average to about the same overall level. However, highly creative CEOs are more likely to be found in the bigger rather than smaller firms (see Graphic 8 "high" category). Thin resources may focus smaller firms on more certain strategies. Whatever the reason, it is less likely that a bantum firm CEO will be engaged by creative possibilities than will the CEOs of larger firms.

Graphic 8

The "take home" from this mini-analysis is that smallest firm CEOs are more variable than are their larger firm counterparts. Some will move VERY decisively but most will assume a more cautious posture. Creative options will be of some interest but are less likely to engage the bantum firm CEO.


SUMMARY
Graphic 9 shows an overall family resemblance among CEOs of all types. The non-profit CEO is most unique but still echoes of the profit-sector CEO profile.

Graphic 9

The reason for the similarity probably lays in the common role the CEOs fill in any organization. Their job is navigating the future. Standard practices and existing methods are in the competent hands of others. The CEO role is to identify opportunities for meeting the conditions of a business environment that does not yet exist. The creative RI strategy is best suited for that purpose. It is likely that CEOs either develop or are selected for their strength in this area.

Once a course has been plotted the CEO role is to cause the firm to follow it. This responsibility is best served by the decisive and action oriented RS style. The posture is tempered in the case of large and non-profit CEOs in favor of the analytical HA style. It is likely that the most important factor in this shift is the influence of stakeholders. The absolute magnitude of decisions attracts and motivates the large firm CEO's stakeholders. Satisfying this wider mix of interests likely results in a more tempered posture.

The more nebulous mission of the non-profits has the same effect. Here stakeholders probably attempt to "bend" decisions in favor of their own interests. Without a definitive "bottom line," analysis (HA) is the only tool available for sorting out the interests' relative to the issues.

Smaller firm CEO's in the profit-sector are the least restricted of the group. They have fewer stakeholders. This means that the decisive RS will be evidenced in visible behavior more quickly. The level of creative RI may be less pronounced (in terms of distribution) but will be visible faster. Hence the smaller firms will be seen as being more nimble and more creative than their larger-firm counterparts.

Consultant Profile: Getting the Gig

Organizational Engineering (see www.oeinstitute.org for more information) looks at the world through an information-processing lens. The basic idea is that the world can be navigated in a variety of ways (e.g., there is more than one way to get to Chicago). Different objectives favor different strategies (e.g., the fastest road vs. the most scenic). These "I Opt"® strategies can be informally summarized as:

Professional Communications, Inc. (PCI), the creator of "I Opt" (see www.iopt.com for more information), maintains a large database of “I Opt” scores. This article uses this data to explore the characteristics of professional consultants.

BASIC CONSULTANT PROFILE
Consultants provide subject matter expertise. Clients contract with them to solve problems. Normally, the relationship is short-term. Once the issue has been addressed, the consultant moves on. The similarity in services offered, the nature of client relation and duration suggest that there will be a commonality in “I Opt” styles among consultants. This commonality is outlined in Table 2.


Not surprisingly, the idea-oriented Relational Innovator (RI) style is favored. Consultants are usually called when there is a vexing problem. The "usual" solutions have already been tried. The consultant is expected to bring in new ideas, options, and approaches. Consultants who consistently display this creative ability will be favored—and they are.

The strong secondary position of the RS might be somewhat unexpected. This "get it done" posture makes sense, however, when you consider how consultants are paid. They typically work on an hourly or daily basis (at the time of this writing, about $2,500 to $3,000 per day for a "typical" consultant). Clients pay for results. Analysis, evaluation, and assessment (an HA posture) do not usually qualify as the “results” being sought.

Comparing consultants to the general population highlights the uniqueness of the consultant's approach along both the idea and action dimensions.

FIGURE 1

RELATIONAL INNOVATOR (RI)

FIGURE 2
REACTIVE STIMULATOR (RS)

There are consultants in every strength category for both RS and RI. However, the degree of difference with the general population is striking. The general population dominates the distribution at lower strength levels. The consultants dominate at higher levels.

Consultants are not always warmly received by the staffs of the client with whom they work. The difference in basic approaches to issues may be a basis for this result when it arises. From the perspective of the general employee pool, the consultant will not be approaching the issue in the "right" way. Compound this with the perceived high compensation (they do not see the unpaid hours) and a bit of tension is understandable.

A take home from the above observation is that a consultant should not expect affection from the people with whom they work in solving corporate issues. Some among the staff will see value in the approach. Most will not. Similarly, the client commissioning the work should expect to hear grumbles from the staff. The measure of success is the solution of the issue. One price of this solution may be a bit of disquiet among the lower levels.


INTERNAL vs. EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS
The "I Opt" database has a sample of 67 people who have been identified as internal consultants. Like external consultants, these people tend to be project oriented. They also move in and out of the various parts of the firm. The parallel between the work of internal and external consultants is strong. On its face, we would expect internal and external consults to approach issues in roughly the same manner.

Figure 3 shows the average strategic style strength of internal and external consultants. The similarity in style profiles is obvious, as are the differences.

FIGURE 3
EXTERNAL vs. INTERNAL CONSULTANTS
STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

Overall, internal consultants have less of a commitment to the spontaneous RS and RI styles. These differences are academically significant (RS p<.05; RI p<.01 using the Mann Whitney U Test). Internal consultants also show a higher commitment to the disciplined HA and LP styles. The HA meets the academic standard of significance (HA p<.05) while the LP fails. Overall, it is fair to say that these differences are probably not due to pure chance.

Internal consultants will tend to be somewhat more disciplined. Their higher scores in HA suggest the greater use of disciplined thought. The higher LP suggests more stress on methodical execution. This posture limits the strength of the unpatterned RS and RI styles. The more discipline, the less spontaneity. The tradeoff cannot be avoided.

A moment's reflection suggests a possible reason. Internal consultants are paid a salary. "Real" consulting gigs are sporadic. External consultants leave. Internal consultants must find a way to stay busy inside the firm. Planning/analysis (HA) or executing established processes and programs (LP) are inviting activity candidates. These are low risk activities that keep you out of trouble as you await the next gig. As an internal asset, it is usually a good idea to save your ammunition for the times when you will need it.

The take home from this mini-analysis is that internal and external consultants are both similar and different. People can readily move between the categories. Client firms often hire their external consultants. Internal consultants often move into an external role. Both are viable strategies for the average consultant.

The mini-analysis also suggests the difficulties both types of consultants will face in a move to the other side. Internal consultants will tend to over invest (the HA and LP effects) in preparation. This will delay the point at which they will get traction. External consultants will tend to be a bit too aggressive. This posture will likely cause some political issues. These will delay their full integration into the firm. Both internal and external consultants will have crosses to bear if they move to the other side.


CONSULTANTS vs. HIERARCHICAL LEVELS
Consultants must sell themselves to get the gigs on which they depend. A first principle of sales is to “mirror” the prospect. The closer their “I Opt” style matches their prospect, the more likely it is that they will “connect” with them. That connection is the first step on the path to securing a new client.

The higher the hierarchical level of a prospect, the more likely it is that they will be able to sign the contract to solidify the gig. Table 3 shows the average “I Opt” style commitment of people at various hierarchical levels who might be able to “ink” a contract.

Table 3 shows that the average consultant most closely matches the profile of the average CEO. A correlation coefficient of .98 confirms the common sense notion that if a consultant can get the CEO, they should. The reception is likely to be warm. They are birds of a feather.

The problems a consultant is brought in to resolve, however, usually exist at lower levels. The normal state of affairs is that the consultant must traverse multiple levels before finding someone who will actually sign a contract. Figure 4 gives a picture of the "I Opt" style differences that exist at the various hierarchical levels.

FIGURE 4
CONSULTANTS vs. HIERARCHICAL LEVELS
Percent of the Theoretical Maximum for each “I Opt” Style

The average values shown in Table 3 are plotted in Figure 4. The match between the average consultant and CEO is obvious. As you move down the hierarchy, the structure of the “I Opt” style pattern systematically changes. As you move down the hierarchical scale, the middle of the bands in Figure 4 flex upwards. This section of the chart represent the commitment to the disciplined HA and LP styles.

At lower levels, facts and logic dominate—prospects want to be shown that your proposal is likely to work. As you move up the scale, facts and logic become less important. The creativity of your ideas and a willingness to act quickly becomes more important. The risk is that the consultant will not recognize that the game is changing as a proposal migrates up the chain.

Entry level work usually involves appeasing lower level executives. Elaborate and detailed presentations are in order at these levels. These productions usually require a lot of work. The consultant will be tempted to amortize his/her investment by carrying it to the next level. The higher the jump, the less effective will be the “let’s reuse what we have” strategy.

The take home from this mini-analysis is the consultants must be willing to invest. Proposals must be retooled if more than one level is involved in getting a gig. The work done at lower levels becomes backup. It might be needed because not everyone at a particular level is average. However, as you migrate up the chain, increasing effort should be invested in principles, concepts and action options. Less should be invested in “why” and “how.”

SUMMARY
The Organizational Engineering database has enabled us to make some useful observations on consultants both internal and external. These include:

1. Consultants are not like everyone else. An information-processing strategy leaning toward spontaneity in ideas and action is favored.
   
   
2. The higher you go up in the hierarchy, the more likely it is that the consultant will “connect” with the prospect. The often repeated advice to “shoot for the top” is good counsel.
   
   
3. If you have to navigate different levels to get the contract inked, expect to invest in retooling your proposal. Attempting to save work by reusing a presentation at different levels may be a formula for failure.
   
   
4. If you get the gig, prepare the client for a bit of discord. On the whole, the internal staffs may not warmly receive your efforts. You are going to approach the issue differently than they might prefer. The reason you are there is to offer a different approach. A bit of tension is a natural outcome of this condition.
   
   
5. Going over to the other side is a viable strategy. The external consult has an exposure in being a bit too aggressive. The RS and RI strategies that kept you alive when on the outside can be a source of political friction when you are on the inside.
   
   
6. The internal consultant moving to the outside is likely to spend a bit of time getting traction. There might be a tendency to over-invest when preparing. This time would be better spent in marketing. There might also be a bit too much reliance on traditional, proven methods. People hire you because you bring a new perspective. Pulling out too many well-worn tools diminishes one of your principal competitive advantages.
   

This mini-analysis is also a practical demonstration of the value of the “I Opt” information-processing approach to analyzing behavior. A brief orientation, a few simple statistics and a small number of graphs provided “take home” observations that are worth taking home.

The websites www.iopt.com and www.oeinstitute.org can orient you to the standard tools and their practical applications in the real world. This Blog demonstrates that the data collected in those applications can have a value in and of themselves. The “I Opt” information-processing approach is able to yield continuing, as well as, immediate benefits.