Hierarchy Influence on Team Leadership

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D., Chief R&D
Professional Communications, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
This research blog looks at team leadership at various organizational levels. The research draws on 976 teams from 236 unique organizations in which the rank of the leader was known. Table 1 summarizes this database.

Table 1
UNIQUE TEAMS AND FIRMS USED IN RESEARCH

The supervisor category includes titles such as leader or team lead. The managerial category includes director titles. The VP category includes General Managers of substantial organizational units. The categories are believed to reasonably reflect distinct organizational levels or ranks.

A host of different societal and economic sectors are represented in the research base. Table 2 summarizes these interest areas.

Table 2
TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS USED IN RESEARCH

The wide distribution of categories, large number of teams and variety of firms suggest that this is a realistic sample. It can be trusted as reasonably representative of teams and their leadership.

TEAM LEADER PROFILE
“I Opt” strategic styles measure short-term decision preferences. Other entries in this research blog and www.iopt.com define styles in more detail. Generally, they represent different positions on the input>process>output continuum.

Table 1 identifies the leader’s dominant strategic style in terms of relative strength. In other words, it measures the relative reliance the leader puts on each “I Opt” style.

Table 3
STRATEGIC STYLE DISTRIBUTION
OF TEAM LEADER

Team leaders favor the Relational Innovator (RI) strategic style (see yellow highlight). But there are differences. Almost as many supervisors favor the Hypothetical Analyzer (HA) (see small red arrow) as the RI style. Both strategies appear to offer reasonable access points to entry level management.

Once access is gained, the game changes. The reliance on the analytical HA strategy drops from about 31% to 20% (p~.05 significance). It appears that a strategy that gains access may not be ideal for advancement.

The RI style seems to be the favored strategy for those moving from manager to Vice President. The move from 34% to 44% reliance on RI is highly significant at p<.001. This is no accident. Some systematic process appears to be operating.

In summary, the idea-oriented RI style dominates the personal preference of team leaders. The analytical HA is a close second for the entry-level supervisor. But the HA importance quickly evaporates with increasing rank. The option-generating RI would seem to offer a key competitive advantage in team leadership.

LEADER VERSUS OTHER TEAM MEMBERS
A leader’s preference for a particular style is a personal, not organizational quality. For example, a leader may prefer RI over other “I Opt” styles. But other team member’s RI strength might exceed that level. Is just a having a dominant RI style enough?

Table 4 answers this question by comparing the leader’s style strength to that of other team members.

Table 4
PERCENT OF TEAMS WHERE LEADER
HAS HIGHEST STRATEGIC STYLE SCORE

The average team size in this sample is 9.2 people. If chance alone were responsible for the leader having the highest strength in a style we would expect it to occur only about 1/9.2 = 10.8% of the time. The LP and HA styles fall within that range. The RI and RS styles (see red arrows) clearly exceed chance. The selection mechanism is operating on an organizational as well as personal level.

The next likely question is how important is this finding. In other words, how much does having the highest strength in a particular style improve the odds of gaining a leadership position?

The advantage is best measured by focusing on the big picture. Table 5 shows the actual versus expected number of teams whose leader had the highest “I Opt” style strength in any category (i.e., RS; LP; HA or RI).

Table 5
CALCULATING THE ADVANTAGE
LEADERSHIP POSITION BY NUMBER OF TEAMS

Table 5 says that in a group of 976 teams a person would have a 130-instance advantage if one or another of their “I Opt” strategic styles ranked as the highest within the team. This translates into a 13% advantage (130/ 976=13.3%). This is a conservative estimate. Using the RI and RS as a standard would yield a higher percent. But “do no harm” is a good principle. A conservative estimate minimizes any exposure.

In summary, team leaders tend to favor the RI and RS strategies on a personal level (see Table 3). They also tend to excel other team members in the strength with which they hold these styles (see Table 4). The degree and structure of the difference is enough to suggest that result is due to some kind of systematic competitive advantage.

The advantage is about 13%. This is enough to pay attention to but not enough to compel. There are other ways to gain and keep team leadership. Investing in them may yield an advantage equal to or greater than the gain from altering “I Opt” strategic styles. This research can be used to improve those odds even further. It is not a panacea but it can make a substantial contribution.

TEAM DIVERSITY
A question might arise whether there is some influence being exerted by the character of the teams at the various levels. One of these factors is the diversity of “I Opt” strategic profiles among team members. Chart 1 shows the diversity distribution by rank of the leader.

Chart 1
TEAM DIVERSITY BY RANK OF LEADER

The “I Opt” Diversity Index measures the range profiles represented on a team. High diversity suggests that the team will naturally consider a wider variety of options. The cost is more decision-making difficulty.

There is a statistically significant difference between managers and Vice Presidents (p<.01) but its magnitude is trivial. Team leaders at all levels face essentially the same level of diversity in the teams that they lead. Diversity does not appear to be a basis for the relationships discovered.

TEAM SIZE
The more people on a team, the more opportunity for diverse positions. The Diversity Index in Chart 1 adjusts for this condition. Chart 2 shows the team size distribution by rank more directly.

Chart 2
TEAM SIZE BY RANK OF LEADER

The differences between supervisors and managers are statistically significant (p<.001) as is manager and Vice President (p<.01). However, it is obvious that the team size differences are not of meaningful consequence. Team size seems to be reasonably constant across the ranks. It is unlikely to account for the relationships discovered.

LEADER/TEAM MEMBER COMPATIBILITY
The degree to which the leader and average team member share a common information processing perspective (i.e., “I Opt” style) is another aspect of teams. Chart 3 shows the average structural information processing compatibility between the leader and the average team member.

Chart 3
AVERAGE INFORMATION PROCESSING COMPATIBILITY
BY RANK OF LEADER

The similarity of the distributions is again striking. There is a statistically significant difference between manager and Vice President (p<.05) but it is of minimal consequence. This is perhaps better seen in Table 6.

Table 6
AVERAGE STRUCTURAL
INFORMATION PROCESSING COMPATIBILITY

A 30% to 50% overlap is in the moderate range of structural compatibility. This range has been repeatedly confirmed as “normal” across the many aspects of human interaction. The 45% compatibility found in here offers no basis to account for differences found.


MISSION ALIGNMENT
The first requirement for getting a leadership position is to be noticed. The spontaneous RI and RS styles tend to be more easily noticed that the more methodical HA and LP. Alternatively, compatibility with higher management levels might be seen as reason. Other entries in this research blog have shown that higher ranks tend to favor RI and RS styles. It could be argued that people appoint team leaders who are like them.

Both of the above positions may explain why people with certain strategic styles are given a chance at leadership. They do not explain why they endure in that position. The leaders of the large number of teams in this research are unlikely to be all new appointees. The source of team leadership preference must be found elsewhere.

Some insight might be gained by looking at the raw “I Opt” scores in each rank. The flow of the change in styles may provide a clue as to what is going on. This flow is shown in Table 7.

Table 7
AVERAGE RAW “I OPT” SCORES

At a supervisor level the RI strategic style is dominant. But the LP and HA styles are almost equal to it. These methodical styles are well suited to handling specifics in an accurate and timely fashion. The mission of most supervisory teams is either processing specifics or improving the methods by which they are processed.

If this is an accurate characterization the implications are clear. The strength of the LP and HA are just as important to supervisory success as a dominant RI. Leadership development initiatives that cause these disciplined strategies (i.e., LP and HA) to be diminished among aspiring leaders can do damage.

At the manager level, the action oriented RS absorbs a decline in the LP and HA strategic styles. The idea-oriented RI also increases but only by a small amount. Teams at this level tend to be focused on functional missions. Specifics tend to be subordinated to tactical directions. Functions often must be discharged within a defined time frame. This mission is well served by the action-oriented RS style.

Leadership development initiatives guiding supervisors toward managerial positions will do well by focusing on decisive action. The ability to act in the face of uncertainty will need to be fostered. A capacity to work with fewer specifics and less detail will become important. These and other aspects of RS behavior can and should be developed.

Table 8 focuses on the change in “I Opt” profile between manager and Vice President. The green arrows show a further decline in both LP and HA. However this time the shift to the idea-oriented RI is more pronounced.

Table 8
AVERAGE RAW “I OPT” SCORES
Manager vs Vice President

At a Vice Presidential level the manager’s functional interest gives way to a mission focus. VPs are concerned about long run postures and objectives. The number of decision variables, the level of uncertainty and number of options explode with the lengthening of the decision horizon. The RI strategy is ideally suited to navigate this environment.

The RI strategy is NOT “out of the box” thinking. That is an analytical exercise. It is “no box” thinking. The box is created along with the relationship between the dots that make up the box. The RI creates ideas totally outside of the boundaries of the known.

Leadership training can foster the development of this capacity. The ability to create theories “on the fly” is part of it. Exercises in relating unrelated things is another. Internships in strong RI environments are a third.

In summary, it appears that strategic style differences by rank are explainable. They probably rest on the nature of the job. The driving factors appear to involve lengthening decision horizons and diminishing level of specificity. The different “I Opt” strategic styles found in this research appear to align with the demands of these various levels.


SUMMARY
This research has shown systematic differences in strategic styles at different leadership levels. Overall, the Relational Innovator approach seems to be favored at all levels. But the relative strength differs.

Transitioning from one level to another is not a simple process of adding RI capacities. Different levels appear to require different mixes of the four basic “I Opt” styles. To be maximally effective, leadership development in both universities and corporate training groups should understand and accommodate these different needs.

This research has identified and traced the impact of these rank-based style differences. Recognizing and adjusting for them can produce better team performance from leaders who are better able to lead. It also serves the interest of the leaders themselves. They can better prepare themselves for the changes that will accompany their rise in rank.

The investment needed to adapt leadership training to the findings of this research is small. The return to both the organization and individuals could be large. This research is worth serious consideration.

Engineering Leadership

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D., Chief R&D and CEO
Professional Communications, Inc.

SUMMARY
This research blog shows that all levels of engineering share a consistency in their information processing (i.e., “I Opt” strategic style) approach. The research also discovered statistically significant style differences based on rank. The blog gives direction on how engineering development can leverage these differences into more effective leadership at an earlier point.


THE SAMPLE
The “I Opt” scores for 456 professional engineers were drawn from the “I Opt” database. These were divided into 3 categories. The Vice President category consisted of 44 people from 24 different firms. These people carried the title of EVP, Sr.VP, VP or Chief Engineer.

The Manager category consisted of 102 people taken from 41 different firms. They typically carried the title of Manager or Director. They were drawn from a variety of engineering areas. The subfields include mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, chemical, civil, process and a host of others.

The Professional category consisted of 310 people from 62 different firms. Titles vary widely. They include prefixes such as senior, research, design, project, process, industrial and many other kinds of engineering.

Table 1 summarizes the source data. The size, diversity and multiple firms involved suggests that sample is a reasonable estimate of the engineering as a whole. It probably can be trusted as representative of the field.

Table 1
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SAMPLE

SHORT-TERM DECISION MAKING
People have information processing preferences. They choose different inputs, favor different outputs and have different strategies to get from input to output. No one is completely objective in choosing the processing method they use. They normally have a standard starting point and move forward from there. If we had to decide on how to decide every decision, nothing would get done. Adopting a conventional starting point is a necessary part of life.

“I Opt” refers to basic information processing approaches as strategic styles. These are the short-term decision strategies. People use a particular starting point because it works in the environment within which they live. The discipline of engineering has a consistency that creates something of a common environment. This should evidence itself in a common approach. And it does.

THE ENGINEERING PREFERENCE
Engineers work on things with a long gestation period. There is time to think. The things they work on can involve large capital investments. There is a lot of incentive for getting it right the first time. In addition, people actually use and not just think about the products of engineering. Do it wrong and health or safety can be affected. This creates moral as well as legal imperatives. Engineering is a world intolerant of error.

Engineers respond to these common conditions in a similar way. It does not matter if they are VPs or practicing professionals. Their most frequent starting point is the Hypothetical Analyzer or HA strategic style. The HA style is characterized by exhaustive research, complete evaluation and a through review of all options. This is the dominant starting point for engineers.

The engineering setting also creates approaches which are to be avoided. Engineers put least reliance on the spontaneous Reactive Stimulator strategic style. The RS option uses expedient means to quickly resolve issues. It is favored where speed matters and/or where the penalty for failure is low. Neither of these conditions are typical in engineering. We would expect this option to be least favored among engineers. And it is. It is at the bottom of the list for everyone from VP to engineering intern.

The distribution of the HA and RS strategic styles are shown in Table 1. Each style registers at a consistent level across all ranks. Statistical tests reveal that there is no significant different between VPs, managers or professional engineers for either the HA or RS style. This consistency can be seen as a product of the common environment that all engineers share.

Graphic 1
DISTRIBUTION OF ENGINEER’S RS and HA
STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

THE ENGINEERING DIFFERENCES
Rank does have environmental effects. The decision horizon extends farther into the future with higher rank. More time is spent on unusual issues. Executives “do” less and direct more. These changes should be reflected in the engineer’s profile as rank increases. And they do.

The differences can be found in the relative strengths of the two remaining strategic styles—the idea-oriented Relational Innovator (RI) and the disciplined action of the Logical Processor (LP) styles. Graphic 2 shows a statistically significant difference by rank. Yellow coloring highlights this difference.

Graphic 2
DISTRIBUTION OF ENGINEER’S RI and LP
STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

A loss in Logical Processor (LP) commitment is the most pronounced strategic style effect of moving up in the hierarchy. The LP style is detail sensitive, focused on certainty and concerned with perfect execution.

The LP style declines as engineers move to higher levels. Problems become ever more obscure as rank increases. For example, detail availability decreases with lengthening horizons. Ambiguity rises and this lessens the value of proven methods. Certainty of outcome becomes more questionable with the volatility inherent in a longer perspective. The LP strategy that is optimal in an operating echelon can become dysfunctional at the highest ranks.

The other change happens with the Relational Innovator (RI) style. Between professional and managerial levels there is no change at all. The same strategy that worked at the professional level will probably work at the managerial level. New skills or competencies may have to be learned. However, the basic way the world is perceived and interpreted remains the same.

Moving from manager to VP is another story. The focus changes from what is or can be to what might be. Possibility becomes more important than probability. Variables unconnected to the current situation take center stage. New and unexpected solutions emerge from the morass of factors churning in the VPs world.


QUELLING THE LP
Organizational development faces challenges in engineering. Engineers seeking advancement need support in reducing their reliance on the disciplined LP style. This sounds easy. It is not.

The first step is to explain “why” a change is needed. The LP strategy is skeptical. A logical, consistent and verifiable explanation is needed. “I Opt” technology is an ideal starting point. Showing the effects of shifting time horizons, increased ambiguity and competing values typical of larger scale projects are usually enough to get the initial buy-in. After hearing the explanation engineers will grant that there are changes that have to be accommodated.

A second step puts an emphasis on “how” to make the needed changes. Routine suggestions such as to “think broadly” or “take a chance” will not work. What is needed is a formula not a specific prescription. Engineering covers many areas and it is unlikely that a single global approach will be viable in all of them. However, there are options.

One option is to leverage the engineers strong analytical HA tendencies. For example, a procedure can be setup where the first step is always a challenge. Does the use of detailed, exacting and highly certain methods make sense for this issue? If left on automatic, you may find that strong LPs will be spending more in time and money than the thing they are trying to perfect than it is worth. This initial challenge sets the stage to offset this tendency.

The second step is to have the engineers themselves design another alternative. This will typically involve breaking an issue into its components. For example, is speed important? If so, the little used expedient RS strategy might work. Or, how valuable is precision? If it makes little difference the exacting LP methods might be relaxed.

This is a natural strategy for engineers. This is what they do. All you are doing is redirecting it to the choice of a strategy rather than the actual resolution of an issue. As a bonus, the result will be a plan that is appropriate for the particular kind of engineering being done.


ENHANCING THE RI
The Relational Innovator (RI) style takes on value when moving from the manager to corporate officer. This means that development efforts can be confined to the relatively few engineers who are candidates for the highest level offices. Fewer people mean that more individual attention is possible.

The process of enhancing RI capability first involves explaining exactly what is needed and why it is desirable. Again, “I Opt” technology is ideal for this purpose. It can explain the why and how of the RI style in a logical, rational and totally transparent way.

For example, the ideas created by the RI are not just creative. They are totally unique. They have a breakthrough character. They cannot be derived from the analysis or study of the issue. That approach will create ideas but they will tend to be enhancements to existing technology.

The way the RI achieves a “breakthrough” level of creativity is by working with things totally unrelated to the issue in question. Anything will work. For example, Einstein speculated about the speed of light and in the process “saw” the connection between time and space. No space, no time.

No amount of study, analysis or assessment of then available thought could have led Einstein to his space-time fabric. It requires seeing the connection in unconnected things.

Teaching engineers to enhance their RI strategy involves a little counter-intuitive thinking. Logical connections are discarded, detail is ignored and the engineering tools hard won in years of education are abandoned. This is how you get “fresh eyes.”

Your engineers must return to the fundamentals of their education. They need to focus on how systems and theories themselves are created. The concept of causal relations—x causes y—is basic. Sequence in time continues to be vital—cause precedes result. Connectivity is important—change x and y changes every time. The principles that underlie any theory about anything are the tools of the RI.

The basic process is simple. Use ANYTHING that comes to mind (i.e., the variables). Last night’s dinner, the color of the sky today, the sound of tires as you drove to work—anything. With no natural common denominator, your engineers will be forced to look for one. The “common denominators” that are discovered are the ground from which breakthrough ideas will spring.

The search for denominators is best done using pictures rather than symbols. The reason is that pictures contain as much information as you want to see. Focus on any part of a picture that you can hold in your mind and a thousand aspects (i.e., variables) will appear. In effect, pictures allow you to quickly run a dragnet over a host of possibilities.

One outcome of the “dragnet” may be more pictures. Thinking of the sound of tires might give rise to images of rhythmic waves on oceans. The wave images can cause your engineers to think of aerodynamic turbulence. The pothole that interrupted the sound of the tires might generate an idea on how to modify an equation that will resolve an issue at hand.

This kind of thinking can be a challenge for engineers. Their world is one of exact connections and precise symbols (mathematical or symbolic). It can take a while for engineers to appreciate the value of the unpredictable RI “dragnet” strategy.


RESEARCH SUMMARY
This research has shown that developing engineers for management is a two stage process. The first stage involves controlling LP tendencies. This development stage applies to all levels.

The second stage applies to engineers ready to move from managerial to corporate officer levels. It involves enhancing the engineer’s RI capacities. This is challenging. But everyone has some RI capacity in their behavioral inventory to begin with. It is always a matter of building on what exists. It never involves creating the capacity from scratch.

Identifying the strategic style changes needed as engineers rise in the corporate hierarchy has satisfied the purpose of this research blog. It is beyond the scope of the blog to fully outline how to adjust the LP and RI capacities. However, it is hoped that enough insight was given to launch development efforts in the right direction.

The Pastor as a Leader

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D., Chief R&D and CEO
Professional Communications, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
A leader’s position determines their information needs. A supervisor in charge of a specific process works with a short-range horizon and much detail (input). Well-defined processes convert raw information into usable form. The desired outcome is usually explicit (output).

A CEO has a long-run horizon with few details (input). The processes are undefined and vague. The outcome is a judgment that requires balancing often-competing factors (output). Different positions favor different approaches. But helping the transition between levels goes far beyond just learning new competencies. It involves changing world views.

Information is the only vehicle we have to understand the world. The different information flows at the different levels create different understandings. There is situational variation. But there will also be commonalities. In other words, there will be variation around a central theme. The point of central tendency and the degree of variation give us something to study.

The suitability of a strategy determines how well a job can be done. If you pay attention to detail, your long-range vision will be compromised. Details compound geometrically with time and will exhaust the capacity of any mind. If you do not pay attention to detail, you cannot be precise. You will not have the needed data. It is a trade-off. “I Opt” technology translates this common sense observation into a framework of assessment. This gives us a way to conduct the study.

This Research Blog uses “I Opt” technology to evaluate 40 Pastors from 10 Protestant Churches. Data from 160 CEOs, 703 VPs, 3574 managers and 653 supervisor are used as comparison points. The goal is to identify opportunities to improve the leadership performance of pastors.


SHORT-RANGE PREFERENCES
When people encounter situations requiring a decision they usually use a preferred strategic style. “I Opt” defines Strategic Styles as particular combinations of input/process/output elements. You can learn more at www.iopt.com and/or www.oeinstitute.org. You can also click the Styles and Patterns video on the right for a simple explanation.

Pastors are people. They are not exempt from the need to make an initial choice. Table 1 compares the pastor’s median commitment to particular strategies with other executives in the “I Opt” database. The yellow boxes show the initial approach most likely to be used.

Table 1
"I Opt" Strategic Style Commitment
Median Percent of Maximum Possible Commitment

Pastors appear to fit into the strategic style approach used at higher management levels. Pastors are equally likely to use the RI and HA strategies. The RI focuses on creating new options. The HA focuses on analysis and assessment. This posture seems to match common experience of a pastor as a thoughtful idea generator. It rings true.

Not only are the initial approaches compatible with the pastor’s position in the hierarchy, but their other strategic styles also fit in. Chart 1 shows a stair step relation in strategic style commitment at the various levels.

Chart 1
"I Opt" Strategic Style Commitment by Organization Level

Four distinct categories representing five different organizational levels are moving in a lock step. This kind of pattern is no accident. There is a cause driving the pattern. That cause is the information processing demands of each organizational level. In other words, the duties of a position cause people to favor a particular strategic style. They not only favor it in work, they favor it in life. It can come to define their persona in the eyes of others.

A question might arise whether pastors are a distinct category or whether they are merely a part of an existing one. Table 2 answers this question.

Table 2
STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE IN STYLE DISTRIBUTIONS

The first row of Table 2 shows that VPs and Managers handle information in totally different ways. They are truly distinct. They seek different kinds of information, process it differently and target different outcomes. There is no doubt but that VPs and Managers “see” different worlds.

Pastors have a foot in both camps. They differ from VPs in that they give more emphasis to analysis (HA). They differ from Managers in putting less stress on proven, well-understood methods (LP). It is reasonable to consider pastors a distinct category. In other words, pastors are a unique breed.

There are spiritual and secular consequences to the pastor’s choice of initial strategy. Spiritually, their choice is well considered. Spiritual choices tend to be long-run (e.g., salvation) and have intellectual resolution (i.e., what to do). Both analysis (HA) and idea generation (RI) are thought based strategies focused on the longer-term future. They fit with the spiritual mission.

The pastor’s strategy choice may be less than ideal for their secular responsibilities (the church, finances, and administration). This area tends to be shorter-range and responds to intervention (i.e., action). Pastors, as a group, will likely be slow to respond to secular challenges. Difficulties can compound during these delays. This is a point of exposure arising from the pastor’s preferred strategic style approach. A strategy that works well in one dimension may not work as well in another.

Secular and spiritual duties of the pastor are entwined. The church must be maintained as an efficient, functioning entity if the pastor’s spiritual mission is to be fully realized. Paradoxically, the long run HA and RI styles of the pastors can short-circuit actions needed for the secular viability of the church.

Pastoral leadership programs would do well to recognize the consequences of the pastor’s choice in initial strategy. They can give pastors tools to help them make better judgments on these initial decision approaches. It will not always be analysis and ideas.

Pastors have substantial capacity in both the RS (instant action) and LP (disciplined action) styles. Merely sensitizing pastors to this exposure may be enough to yield a gain for both the pastor and the church. Giving them tools for quickly assessing new situations can further improve outcomes. There is opportunity here.

LONG-RANGE PREFERENCES
Strategic Styles are the strategies a person uses to settle issues. If their favored style fails or if added decisions are needed to resolve an issue, people move to their next most favored strategy. The combinations of primary and secondary strategies are called Strategic Patterns.

Strategic Patterns have a precise and mathematical definition. However, for purposes of this research blog is perhaps best to typify them in terms of the maxim likely to be seen in behavior.

Changer:---------“I got an idea, let’s try it”
Conservator:---“Let’s do it once and do it right”
Perfector:-------“Great idea, let’s think it through”
Performer:-----“Let’s get it done! We’ll do it right if we can and anyway if we have to”

Strategic Patterns (i.e., long-term) tend to follow the same systematic progression as shown in Strategic Styles (i.e., short-term). In other words, the pastor’s long-term strategic pattern fits into a stair step hierarchy as neatly as does the short-term strategic style. This is shown in Chart 2.

Chart 2
"I Opt" Strategic Pattern Commitment by Organization Level

Pastors seem to fit best with higher level executives (CEO and VP). Like them, pastors favor a Changer stance (“Great idea! Let’s try it!). Managers and Supervisors lean toward a Conservator posture (“Do it once, do it right!). These longer-term stances are more easily seen in Table 3.

Table 3
"I Opt" STRATEGIC PATTERN COMMITMENT BY RANK
Median Percent of Maximum Possible Commitment

A sharp-eyed reader will notice an anomaly in the otherwise orderly progression. The pastor’s strength in the Performer pattern (far right on Table 3) falls short of all other organizational levels. This is more clearly seen in Chart 3.

Chart 3
"I Opt" PERFORMER PATTERN COMMITMENT

The Performer strategic pattern results confirm the pastor as a unique category. The “Let’s get it done! We’ll do it right if we can and anyway if we have to” stance is ill suited to both the pastor’s secular and spiritual responsibilities. For a pastor, a low commitment to this pattern is the right posture.

Overall, the pastor’s long run decision stance seems to fit well into the leadership hierarchy. Standard leadership development tools are likely to be as effective as they are in the purely secular realm. However, there is a little secret embedded in the statistics.


THE LITTLE SECRET
This analysis used medians. This is the mid-point of a distribution. It is unaffected by people who hold extreme positions. Had we used averages a different aspect of the distribution of pastors would have become visible. Chart 4 shows this condition graphically.

Chart 4
"I Opt" PROFILE FOR PASTORS
(n =40)

There is clustering of pastors in the Conservator Pattern quadrant. A cluster is a bunching of people who tend to view the world through the same color glasses. They will tend to accept the same kind of variables as relevant, process them in roughly equivalent ways and seek the same character of outcomes. In other words, they can form a natural coalition.

The pastor cluster favors disciplined thought (HA) and disciplined action (LP) as a way of conducting life. They are detail sensitive. They tend to be thorough in processing information. They want to be right every time and seek certainty in the outcome. They see obstacles vividly and seek to avoid them.

In contrast, a majority of other pastors see opportunity more vividly than obstacles. They are more dispersed. They will try to realize the opportunity they see in different ways. However, there is commonality. They value new ideas. They are more willing to focus on central aspects of issues rather than details. They are willing to sacrifice certainty for the promise of large gains.

Clustering seems to be more pronounced among pastors than it is in other management categories. Charting the sample variance, an unbiased measure of dispersion in a group, makes this visible. For purposes of this research blog it is enough to say that the higher the sample variance, the more different are members of a group from each other. Chart 5 shows the results of this test.

Chart 5
SAMPLE VARIANCE OF STRATEGIC PATTERNS

The pastor’s Changer and Conservator categories stand out. This confirms that the pastor category is composed of two distinct subgroups that carry the same title. In other words, there is not one kind of pastor but two very different ones.

The “little secret” has implications for leadership. Leadership development programs drawn from the business community will miss the mark. These programs see leadership training in terms of continuum and have built their courses that way. In other words, they did not have clusters to worry about, so they did not build them in.

Adopting these business tools without modification is likely to short-change pastors. Focusing on opportunity oriented pastors automatically disenfranchises those that are obstacle oriented. The same applies in reverse. Focusing on obstacles will be of little value to a pastor whose world centers on creating opportunities. Neither category is “right” or “wrong.” Both obstacles and opportunities exist in the real world. Leadership training must address both of these legitimate stances.

One place to start leadership training for pastors is to introduce them to “I Opt” technology. Pastors in both subcategories are smart people. Showing them the biases inherent in their information-processing postures is often enough to produce a gain. A recognized bias can be offset. An invisible one cannot.

Training can also be adjusted. For example, “vision” is currently seen as a quality of leadership. This is the ability to envision and articulate an end state without knowing exactly how it will be realized. Vision is a natural quality of the Changer Pattern. It makes no sense at all to a Conservator. For them, it is the equivalent of a childhood wish.

Leadership training can be adjusted to accommodate these situations. For example, exercises can be developed to show the Conservator “how” to create a vision. Alternatively, they can be shown how to link a series of shorter-term goals into a system that resembles a long-term vision.

The point to be made is that standard programs do not have to be abandoned. They just need to be adjusted. They need to recognize that pastors are a unique breed with unique needs. Recognizing this gives us an opportunity to improve church leadership in both the secular and spiritual realms. It is an effort worth making.

Fitting the Leader into the Matrix

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D., Chief R&D and CEO
Professional Communications, Inc.


ABSTRACT
University and corporate educators prepare people to lead. They typically focus on the leader and the group being lead. Little thought is given to how the new executive fits into the existing management structure. Yet leaders must mesh their efforts with other leaders to be effective. This research blog looks at the leader-to-leader “fit.”

“I Opt” is used to measure the fit. Psychology may apply in a specific situation. Information processing always applies. “I Opt” is part of an information processing based technology. The way information is processed determines how people “understand” issues. A common understanding eases integration while differences can impede it. “I Opt” strategic styles are not the only thing determining “fit.” But they are an important thing.

This research blog uses the “I Opt” profiles of 529 undergrad, MBA and EMBA (i.e., Executive MBA) business students and 3,907 executives. The fit between students and executive levels are measured from both a corporate and university perspective. The implications for leadership education are then specified.


STUDENTS
Chart 1 shows that different levels of business education have different “I Opt” profiles (i.e., information processing patterns).

CHART 1
“I Opt” STRATEGIC STYLES BY STUDENT LEVEL
(111 Business Undergraduates, 293 MBAs, 125 EMBAs)

“I Opt” profiles reflect the ways students acquire and assess new knowledge. For example, an undergraduate will tend to “understand” new knowledge in structural terms—the “how” and “why.” The EMBA will see the knowledge more in terms of opportunity—the “what” and “when.” Effectively, students at different levels will “understand” the same knowledge in different ways.

This finding has teaching implications. The best way to teach an undergrad is not the best way to teach an EMBA. Teaching the same course the same way between levels is a formula for suboptimized learning. Instructional design should know about and adjust for these differences.

Instructors themselves are also affected. Instructors who are effective at one level may not be at another. Delivery as well as content must be adjusted if learning is to be optimized. Knowing when and how to adjust is a necessary component for optimized learning.

Many educators know of these differences from experience. This finding tells them what exists, its direction and its magnitude. Knowing these things opens the door to improved learning. This can be far more effective than waiting for each educator to “discover” the differences for themselves.


EXECUTIVES
Executives also come in gradations. Three categories can be identified. The 1st Level includes titles like supervisor and leader. Mid-level encompasses managers, directors and similar titles. Senior executives include VP, General Manager and the various “C” level titles. The “I Opt” profiles of these categories are shown in Chart 2.

CHART 2
EXECUTIVE LEVEL DISTRIBUTION OF “I Opt” STRATEGIC STYLES
(473 1st Level, 2,850 Mid-Level, 574 Senior Executives)

A “stair step” is again visible. This suggests that the demands of the position—not the field within which it is applied—is the driving factor. In other words, the scope and nature of the different management levels is causing particular “I Opt” profiles to be favored.

The executive “stair step” reflects that of the students. Lower level positions favor structure (the how and why). This posture is oriented toward the present. Higher level positions are more opportunity oriented (the what and when). This is a future oriented stance.

It makes some sense that leaders are more future oriented. Their job is to chart a path. The job of those being lead is to keep the machine running. If this is not done a path to the future is useless. Both qualities are needed in a successful organization. They just reside in different proportions at different levels. Corporate educators would do well to recognize these distinctions.


MATCHING EDUCATION TO MANAGERIAL LEVELS
Chart 3 matches education level with a level in management. Almost all of the undergraduates in the sample are full-time students earning entry-level credentials—the 1st level of management.

The MBAs are a mixture of full and part-time students. Many hold or have held professional positions. Their likely match are the mid-management levels.

The EMBA typically is being groomed for a senior position. Most already hold significant roles in their firms. One of a firm’s motives for sponsoring their education is to ensure a “fit” with their soon-to-be peers. Those peers are likely to be senior executives.

CHART 3
MANAGEMENT vs. EDUCATIONAL LEVEL COMPARISON

There appears to be a rough consistency in match proposed above. Looking a bit deeper into the data can help identify the opportunities imbedded in each level.


EMBA vs. VP Levels
The EMBAs are usually marked by their firms as candidates for senior positions. Chart 4 suggests that part of this judgment may have been based on their management “fit.” Overall, the EMBA’s profile strongly resembles that of senior management.

CHART 4
SENIOR MANAGEMENT vs EMBA STUDENTS

(125 EMBAs, 574 Senior Executives)

While the profiles are highly similar, they are not identical. Educators can help close this gap by accenting the value of idea generation (i.e., options and alternatives) in their teaching. This leverages the EMBA’s substantial existing skills. Sensitizing them to the value of this skill will probably to cause them to hone this skills to higher levels. The gap will close.

Reducing the tendency to approach issues with analysis, assessment and evaluation (HA) is also warranted. Knowing how to judge the analysis of others is more important than knowing how to do the analysis. Educators might want to stress “thumbnail” evaluation techniques, critical factor methods and consistency tests. The integrity of the decision input can be reasonably assured without the high cost of detailed analysis.

Educators do not have to give much attention to the disciplined (LP) or spontaneous (RS) action tendencies of the EMBA. These are already well matched to the senior executive level. In other words, these capacities are already present at about at the right level.

Overall, the EMBA is already well positioned to work on a common plane with other senior executives. But the refinements above will help the EMBA navigate the final steps. The reputation of the teaching institution will also benefit. Its students will seem to “fit” better than those of other schools. The small effort involved will pay everyone dividends.


MBA vs. Mid-Management
Chart 5 shows a looser fit between the MBA profile and that of the executive rank to which they aspire.

CHART 5
MID-MANAGEMENT vs MBA STUDENTS
(293 MBAs, 2,860 Mid-Level Executives)

Classroom experience will not change “I Opt” profiles. But, the way they are deployed can be changed. The prescription is the same as given for the EMBA—just in greater strength. Less analysis (HA) and more emphasis on generating options and ideas (RI) will serve the MBA well.

The wider gap means that sensitizing the average MBA will be more of a challenge. It is likely that instruction will have to be repeated from different angles to have a lasting effect. However, the size of the gap also suggests that the return on this effort will be much higher than with the EMBA.

In addition, the MBA will tend to put about 8% (not shown on the chart) too much value on the deliberate, exacting action (LP). They will also undervalue decisive, spontaneous action (RS) by about 13%. Since the gap in these action dimensions is smaller, the teaching challenge will not be as great. Exercises showing that the cost of exacting action can exceed the value it returns may be enough to make the point.

Overall, the MBA is too focused on structured (i.e., patterned) methods. Guiding them to appreciate the value of spontaneity in both thought (RI) and action (RS) will pay dividends. They will be more “in tune” with fast paced demands of their mid-management target.


Undergraduate vs. 1st Level Management
Undergraduates follow the MBAs in their “fit” with the level to which they likely aspire. Chart 6 shows the pattern is the same but the difference is less severe.

CHART 6
1st LEVEL MANAGEMENT vs UNDERGRADUATES
(111 Undergraduates, 473 1st Level Executives)

Some undergraduates may be early in their careers and preparing for professional non-management positions. To test whether this would cause a change in diagnosis an added test was run. Undergraduate profiles were matched to those of 527 non-managerial professionals. The results are shown in Chart 7.

CHART 7
NON- MANAGEMENT
PROFESSIONALS vs UNDERGRADUATES

(111 Undergraduates, 527 Non-Management Professionals)

The fit between undergraduates and professionals is closer but the pattern is the same. The students will tend to over stress structural approaches (LP and HA—the how and why) and devalue spontaneous methods (RI and RS—the what and when).

Overall, the educator’s return for adjusting their strategy will be less than realized for the MBA. But there will still be a positive return. Students sensitized to the value of unpatterned methods will tend to integrate better with their peers as well as those at a higher level (i.e., mid-management). It’s an effort worth making.


CORPORATE TRAINING IMPLICATIONS
Corporate educators do not work with students. They focus on preparing employees to assume higher levels of responsibility. The educational challenge is the same. Only the subjects change.

Chart 8 shows “I Opt” styles for various levels of management. “I Opt” profiles for 527 non-management professionals have been added since they are in the corporate educator’s mix.

CHART 8
"I Opt" STYLES BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL

The “stair step” pattern is again visible. What this means is that increasing responsibility will involve both growth and decline. And both happen at the same time. The spontaneous, unpatterned strategies of RS and RI grow. The disciplined, structured strategies of HA and LP decline. Education is a matter of change, not just “growth.”

Overall, the prescription for corporate and university educators is the same. The higher the level being targeted, the greater the emphasis on unpatterned strategies—in both thought and action (RI and RS).

But don’t overdo it. The objective is to target the level being addressed not some ultimate level. Each level has its own “optimal” profile. Both university and corporate educators have to be smart enough to recognize this. There is no single, universal leadership profile. There are many.

But there is a universal. That universal is the need for continuous change as responsibilities change. There is no right or wrong. Different levels just confront different issues that demand different ways of seeing the world.

If leaders are to be fully successful they must be prepared to make these transitions at the appropriate time. Too early and they may compromise their ability to attain the role to which they aspire. Too late and they may have trouble keeping the job or progressing further.


A BIG CAVEAT
This research blog used averages. Averages apply to groups, not to individuals. To illustrate this Chart 9 shows the “I Opt” strength distribution of the 473 Senior Executives that were averaged for this study.

CHART 9
SENIOR MANAGEMENT
STYLE STRENGTH DISTRIBUTION
(473 Senior Executives )

The senior executive ranks include people using a variety of strategic profiles. What this means is that there is no “silver bullet” profile. However, there are odds. Those odds will favor people who subscribe to “I Opt” strategies that are proven at the managerial level in question. The “most proven” of these tend to center around the average for the level being targeted.

Used with understanding and caution, the results of this research blog can be helpful to an individual. The results can be offered as a probability assessment rather than as a prescriptive formula. Used this way it may instill a level of flexibility and tolerance for change. This will serve them well throughout their career.