The Nursing Staircase and Managerial Gap

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


INTRODUCTION
This evidence-based research blog outlines the discovery of a nursing staircase. Its steps are systematic and quantifiable. The staircase impacts patient care, nursing quality, organizational effectiveness and nurse retention among many other things.

The staircase automatically creates a communication “gap.” This can compromise coordination and can give rise to significant tensions that can affect an entire nursing organization. This research shows the dimensions of the issue and traces some of its implications as applied to nursing.


NURSING MANAGEMENT
This study draws on data from two hospitals. One is a government facility and the other a private hospital. A total of 52 nurses in management positions guide the activities of 344 staff nurses.

As with other goal directed organizations, nursing management is a hierarchy. In this study the Chief Nursing Executive and various Nurse Administrators (e.g., Cardiac, Woman's Health, etc.) occupy senior positions. The Nurse Manager sits in the middle and the Assistant Nursing Manager lies at ranks below. The hierarchical composition and names assigned vary by hospital but there are always positions at the different levels.

Graphic 1 shows that the information-processing strategies used by these various levels at the hospitals studied differ both systematically and significantly.

Graphic 1
INFORMATION PROCESSING STRATEGIES
OF LEVELS OF NURSING MANAGEMENT

A “stair step” arrangement of information processing strategies is instantly apparent. The higher the level, the less reliance is placed on structured approaches (LP and HA) and the greater the dependence on strategies that build on unpatterned input (RS and RI). This is same phenomena has been found in non-nursing teams, in functional areas such as engineering and in hierarchies in general. As yet unpublished ongoing research has revealed many similar instances. The relationship is ubiquitous.


THE STAFF NURSE
The “stair step” relationship within the management structure creates issues between management levels. However, the real impact on any organization will be felt where “the rubber hits the road.” In the case of nursing, that happens at the staff nurse level.

The staff nurse is the core of any hospital. They are the people who nursing management must successfully direct in order to realize their vision. A companion Staff Nursing Paradox research blog has shown that staff nurses tend to use a Logical Processor (LP) strategic style. This earlier study argues that the LP style is the one best suited to their core function. Graphic 2 reveals that the staff nurse’s choice fits neatly into the “stair step” found in management. Exactly the same managerial “gap” processes are at work throughout the hierarchy.

Graphic 2
INFORMATION PROCESSING STRATEGIES
INCLUDING STAFF NURSES (in red)

The fact that the differences are significant is apparent from Graphic 2. However, just to be sure the various management levels were consolidated (n=52) and compared to the staff nurse population (n=344). In every case the level of statistical significance far exceeds academic standards at the p < .001 level. This is no accidental relationship.


IMPLICATIONS
There is no mystery on why the staircase has evolved. As a person rises in a hierarchy the problems they address become less and less “standard.” Issues that can be resolved by traditional practices (LP-action based) and by known analytical processes (HA-thought based) have been already addressed at lower levels. The manager is left with issues that favor innovative approaches (RI-thought based) and/or which require decisive action even in the absence of full information (RS-action based).

The staircase is the result of a natural filter. It systematically sorts out people by their information processing approach. It matches these to the kinds of issues that exist at the various organizational levels. But there is also a cost. The “stair steps” are communication impediments. In order to address an issue at a particular level, you have to focus on it. In doing that, you lose focus on allied issues at other levels.

For example, a nurse facing a patient related crisis is likely to instantly deploy methods she knows work in a manner that has proven to be efficient and effective (an LP approach). In doing this she automatically loses focus on the possibility of less certain but potentially more viable options that might be applied (the RI approach). If these kinds of issues continually arise, the strategic style tends to be reused. With reuse the approach solidifies into a perspective. It becomes an efficient and effective way of navigating life.

People whose “I Opt” strategic profile (i.e., the combination of styles they normally employ) match the demands of a particular environment tend to prosper. They begin to generalize their strategies. If it works here, it must work there. Their strategy becomes the “right” way to do things. People addressing these issues using a different strategy are “wrong.” After all, if there is a “right” there must be a “wrong.” Thus is born a basis for organizational tension.

This kind of thinking can even leak into the meaning of words. For example, a person working in a Trauma Center is likely to favor the instant action RS style. That person will probably interpret the word “fast” to mean immediately. The RS interpretation works in the Trauma environment. This is evidence that it is the “right” meaning.

A person working in Radiology will probably favor the analytical HA style. They are likely to see “fast” as meaning as soon as things have been completely thought out. As with the RS above, this meaning of fast becomes generalized. Same word, different meanings.

The example used the word fast. In fact any term that is relative in nature is subject to this kind of interpretation divergence. For example terms like creative, thorough and precise are equally susceptible. This alone is enough to cause serious coordination problems. But it does not stop there.

The meaning of words sets expectations. Expectations are the standard against which judgments of “good” or “bad” are made. When applied to work performance these judgements of good and bad can influence assignments, raises and promotions. This is serious business.

People compare their judgment of what they have done with that of the person evaluating them. If these two people have different strategic profiles (i.e., different information processing strategies) the standards used can vary. One person can see an assessment as "just" while the other believes they have been “wronged.” At this point emotions can come into play. A different standard backed by emotional energy is a formula for continuing tension.

There is no right or wrong here. Both parties in the example are using a “right” strategic posture. Both parties have interpreted the terms being used in a “right” way. The standards based on their “right” interpretations are themselves “right.” What has happened is that the staircase has built divergence into the system. The divergence cannot be avoided. It can only be managed.


STAIRCASE MANAGEMENT
The existence of the staircase presents chronic but not fatal problems. The structure has functioned for centuries in various forms and can probably continue to function for centuries more. Prior to “I Opt” uncovering its basic dynamics, there was not much to be done. Now there is.

Minimizing misinterpretation and its associated standards divergence is simple. Just make sure everyone knows where everyone else is “coming from.” This transparency only requires access to “I Opt” profiles. There is nothing secret about them. We all display them every day. The problem is that not everyone sees each other every day. That means that it is easy to make a wrong guess just because of selective, irregular exposure.

The benign character of “I Opt” profiles has been demonstrated. "I Opt" has multiple major clients (i.e., Fortune 500 firms) who regularly use small foam profiles mounted for display. They are passed out in training and consulting sessions. They end up on display in offices and workstations and can stay there for years. Some clients have been using this tool for a decade. If there were any exposure they would have discovered it by now. No problem has ever arisen.

Even smaller steps can help. Individual “I Opt” profiles evolve to fit the specific life that is being led. We did not “choose” them. People see these patterns in their own behavior. People will refer to themselves as creative, precise, analytically adept or responsive. But they seldom reflect on the implications of these patterns. The “I Opt” profile makes these implications visible. Visibility quickly converts to knowledge. Knowledge is a precondition for the adjustment mechanisms that limit misinterpretation. It is a good thing.

Transparency comes with a bonus. It limits emotional escalation. For humans, behaviors always have a “reason.” If one is not apparent, it is created. An easy attribution for offensive behavior is malicious intent. With this can come an enduring emotional response. This is a bad thing.

The availability of an alternative “reason” reduces the likelihood of assigning malicious intent as a cause. The “I Opt” profile provides that alternative. The behavior might still be offensive but at least does not carry the same intentional component. The chances emotional escalation are reduced.

STAIRCASE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
The staircase works by Darwinian selection. People are selected and installed in management positions. Over time they either work out or don’t. If they don’t workout they either separate themselves or are otherwise separated. The people who remain generally fit the needs of the role.

The first option for improving staircase operation fits into the earlier transparency prescription. “I Opt” styles are not immutable. They can be changed. Telling nurses how they might fit into the staircase can be a first step. A report that identifies their strengths and exposures in a leadership context can give them a template. If the fit is not good for a position to which they aspire they can start making adjustments. Change is not easy but it can be done.

Another option is to use the “I Opt” profile as a scanning mechanism. For example, Graphic 3 shows the results of scanning the 344 staff nurses in this study against the average profile of an Assistant Nurse Manager. The circle designators (i.e., centroids) are Cartesian Averages that locate the point of central tendency along all four of the “I Opt” styles simultaneously. Yellow circles identify nurses falling within 30% of the Assistant Nurse Manager (in blue). The scan isolates those nurses whose strategic style perspective roughly matches that of presumably successful existing management.

Graphic 3
SCAN OF NURSES WITHIN 30% OF
ASSISTANT NURSE MANAGER PROFILE (in blue)

The scan cannot be used as a selection mechanism. It does not consider things like experience, education, aptitude or any number of other factors that are relevant to selection. But it can serve to alert management to potential candidates who might otherwise have been missed. For example, a nurse working the night shift may not get the exposure of an equivalent person working the day shift. A scan can help level the playing field.

The screening standard in the example was the Assistant Nurse Manager. There is some indication that various parts of the hospital favor somewhat different profiles. Graphic 4 contrasts nurse managers from the ICU and Trauma Center.

Graphic 4
ICU vs PSYCH MANAGERS AVERAGE
STRATEGIC STYLE DISTRIBUTION

The sample is admittedly thin. But it serves to alert the nurse leader to the fact that the standard used for scanning can be tailored to specific needs. All that needs happen is to adjust the average used as a standard. People at relevant level of management in the area of interest can serve as a standard just as well as did the Assistant Nurse Manger in the example used here.

Darwinian processes will eventually sort out the well suited and ill suited to create the staircase. However, the process is inefficient and unnecessarily brutal. Scanning the pool of possibilities can help insure that people who already have appropriate perspective are considered. People whose strategic profile is ill suited but who are otherwise qualified can be given support to increase their odds of success. It is a win-win for all involved—the hospital and the candidates.


SUMMARY
Information processing profiles form a staircase. The staircase was not planned. It is the outcome of a natural filtering process that aligns an individual’s information processing strategy with the nature of the work being performed. It will always be there.

It is the staircase that integrates the patient, ward/unit and hospital level interests into a single, unified whole. All of the different information flows, distinct objectives and unique responses are accommodated somewhere on the staircase. The staircase is what allows a hospital—along with all of the benefits it provides—to exist.

The staircase carries some inherent downside aspects. Miscommunication along with its potential for emotional escalation is one of the more ubiquitous exposures. This cannot be escaped but it can be minimized. The simplest, least expensive and most durable way of doing this is a program of transparency.

The staircase is constantly being rebuilt as new people come and go. The Darwinian process that produces the staircase can be refined. The populations of potential management candidates can be scanned to insure that everyone who merits consideration is in fact considered. People whose skills match the hospitals needs but whose information processing perspective is misaligned can be helped to adjust.

Nothing will dissolve the issues that the staircase creates. However, knowledge that the staircase exists and awareness of the processes that produce it give nurse management an edge. They can now actively manage the process. In doing so the entire nursing profession will be well served. Hospital management becomes more efficient and effective. Professional nurses will work in a more supportive environment and are given a “fair shot” at management positions regardless of where or when they work. The information processing perspective is a concept worth incorporating in the toolbox of the nursing profession.

Split Style: A Two Edged Sword

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


INTRODUCTION
This research blog is intended for scholars and advanced practitioners of “I Opt” technology. It delves deeply into the split style pattern, an analytical concept unique to “I Opt.” It offers hard data evidence as well as interpretive analysis. People who have a more casual interest in split styles are encouraged to view the summary video on the iopt.com website or on YouTube. It is more accessible than the evidence-based research shown here.


WHAT IS A SPLIT STYLE?
Information controls behavioral options. You cannot be precise if you do not have detail. You cannot envision far distant futures if all you have is detail. Information determines possible behaviors. This is not a speculation. It is a certainty.

A split style is a name given to a particular strategic profile that favors two diametrically different information processing strategies. In other words, they differ on both the input and output dimension. Since information determines behavior, this choice causes behavioral sequences that appear to be contradictory. In one situation, the split style may choose a cautious option. The very next situation may be virtually identical but the individual elects to act suddenly with out forethought.

An outsider viewing the behavior generated by this combination over time would likely conclude that the person chooses to behave in an inconsistent fashion. In other words, the assumption is that the individual evaluated the situation in the same manner yet choose a opposite course. The natural outcome of this assumption is that the evaluation mechanism being used is faulty.

From an information processing perspective, there is no fault or deficiency. The person just chose to pay attention to different aspects of similar situations. Graphically, a split style means that the primary and secondary style lying at opposite poles on the standard “I Opt” diagram. Graphic 1 shows that this can happened on either of the two primary axes.

Graphic 1

EXAMPLES OF SPLIT STYLE PROFILES

(Actual profiles from Database)

It is useful to explain what is happening. The Hypothetical Analyzer and Reactive Stimulator combination is termed the HA/RS split. A person using this strategy will at times adopt the HA’s cautious, detail-oriented posture focused on producing a plan, assessment or other similar thought-based outcome. At other times they may elect the RS’ fast response based on minimal information and expedient methods. If seen in sequence over a period of time these alternating postures could suggest a contradictory behavioral pattern.

The Relational Innovator and Logical Processor (RI/LP) split produces different set of behaviors. Here the person may choose the cautious, detail-oriented posture focused on the precise execution of the LP. This action posture alternates with an RI output of ideas or new options spontaneously generated from any available information. Again, over time the only visible pattern is contradictory behavior.

People base their predictions on patterns of past behavior. The opposing postures of a split style profile eliminate commonalities needed for pattern generation. An observer would only see inconsistent behavior suddenly “pop up” without a clear reason. This creates a degree of behavioral uncertainty. It is inherent in the strategy.


HOW OFTEN DO SPLIT STYLES OCCUR?
Split style profiles are not common. Graphic 2 shows that number of split styles encountered in the population is about 12% (based on a sample of 42, 952).

Graphic 2

DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE PROFILES

Complicating matters still further is the 12% of split styles are not homogeneous. They are about equally divided between HA/RS and RI/LP. This makes prediction even more difficult. People are unlikely to see the HA/RS and RI/LP as two different expressions of the same phenomena. An observer is likely only witness one or the other types of splits and thus see half of the 12% - or about 6% of the population - displaying contradictory behavior patterns.

People maintaining split style profiles will tend to be seen as outliers—people who lie out of the norm of everyday experience. This makes it likely that the contradictory behavior pattern will be treated as anomaly—just a peculiarity that can be ignored.


WHAT DETERMINES THE STYLE CHOICE?
People using a split style strategy usually develop some kind of “switch.” A switch is just a situational signal. We have seen switches based on the level of risk, the location (home or work), psychological state, organizational levels and time frames. Anything that makes sense to the individual can be used as a “switch.”

The switch does not have to be conscious. All of us would find it difficult to articulate why we chose to use this style or that to address the thousands of decisions we make every day. We choose a particular approach because it is “right.” What is “right” is determined by our profile. We do not have to think about our choices. Neither does the person using a split style.

While the choice of a particular style response may be unarticulated, the same may not be true of the profile as a whole. Once given the lens of “I Opt” we have found that many (but not all) people using split styles recognize their tendency to use radically different approaches. In other words, there is usually no “push back” resulting from the “I Opt” diagnosis.

On an individual level there is nothing to “fix.” Whatever the switch is, it works most of the time for the person using it. If it did not, it would be discarded or modified over time. A split style strategy may be inconsistent but it can be effective for the person using it.


DOES ONE STYLE TYPICALLY DOMINATE IN A SPLIT?
Graphic 3 shows that the thought based styles of HA and RI tend to be mildly favored in split style patterns.

Graphic 3
DOMINANT STYLES IN SPLIT STYLE PATTERNS

Theory offers no reason for the slight dominance of the thought-based strategies of HA and RI. However, the dominant style is the one that is used most often. It can be speculated that thought based strategies are more frequently called upon in a modern, complex society. However, this is just speculation. A definitive answer would require research that is beyond the scope of this blog.


HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE INDIVIDUAL?
A split style is not an issue for the individual holding it. People acquire style preferences as a response to the situations that they typically confront. If the situations require alternating between two diametrically opposed stances, the split style profile is optimal. In other words, split styles can be functional for the individual.

An example may help. One of the people with a split style profile that we encountered was an executive. He headed a function responsible for the distribution of large amounts of money. It turned out that he was using RI/LP split style profile. We wondered why.

We discovered that the choice was based on two roles he fulfilled. When managing the distribution of funds the disciplined, rigorous and detail-oriented Logical Processor (LP) style was being used. But when interacting with higher management levels, the idea generating Relational Innovator (RI) style was most advantageous. Since these two activities occupied a major portion of his time, they became embedded as his general approach.

“I Opt” styles are not confined to work. A split style went home with this executive when he left the office. It may not have been optimal in that context. But it does not have to be. It is enough that it be adequate for addressing the issues being confronted in that context. In overall terms, the gain in a work environment could be enough to offset any loss in other life situations.

A split style profile is used by a person because it works. It is a rational choice. It carries no penalty for the individual using it. It is a functionally effective method of addressing situations actually encountered in the conduct of life.


HOW DO SPLIT STYLES AFFECT GROUPS?
Split style difficulties emerge only at a group level. They are a sociological emergent. The source of the difficulty lies in the capricious unpredictability of behavior. Group members do not know about the unusual profile (the split style) being used or about the switch that controls it. The negative impact of this condition appears in the area of coordination.

A major factor in group efficiency and effectiveness is the ability of members to anticipate each other. If team members can predict each others behavior they can act on their expectation. They do not have to wait to be told what others will do. This predictive ability creates the widely recognized phenomena of a “smoothly functioning” team. A split style compromises this ability.

This happens because groups typically function as chains of activities. John does this and hands it off to Mary. Mary does that and passes it on to Peter. In this chain, the member’s anticipate the actions of those on whom they depend. Since they are prepared they can act more quickly and efficiently when the event they are expecting occurs.

But, if John were a split style, Mary’s predictions will be wrong more often than they would be if John used a typical “I Opt” profile. In other words, there is a greater chance of predictive error. When that happens, Mary may have to retrace some of steps she has already taken. Her efficiency is lost.

In some cases these bad predictions can compromise Mary’s ability to give Peter what he needs to complete the chain. When this occurs, the inefficiency is magnified. Peter’s prediction of Mary’s likely behavior could be compromised by John’s unpredictability.

The level of inefficiency varies with the degree of unpredictability. However, the fact that there will be a level of inefficiency is inherent. But a loss of efficiency does not mean that a split style automatically compromises effectiveness—the purpose of the group effort.

Internal efficiency losses can be offset by external advantages. For example, in our earlier example of the RI/LP executive the split style was functional. The executive’s LP was well adapted to handling the cash disbursement activity of the group he headed. His RI helped insure that senior management remained satisfied that the group was alert to new options. The executive’s split style approach supported group effectiveness.

Split style profiles are like any other. They are neither good nor bad. Their value depends on the balance of inefficiency generated versus the gain from the broadened range of issues addressed. This balance is situational. There is no general formula for gauging a particular split style’s net value.


HOW OFTEN DO SPLIT STYLES HAPPEN IN TEAMS?
Teams are just assemblages of people. The average team size is about 8 people. Split styles are about 12% of the population. On a pure chance basis the joint probability that an 8-person team will not have a member with a split style is 36% ((1 - .12)^8). The remaining 64% of teams would contain at least 1 split. Graphic 4 shows that this is exactly what happens in actual practice. In other words, the real world behaves just as mathematics says it should.

Graphic 4
DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE IN TEAMS

A split style profile is displayed in behavior. It is not an hidden quality. Yet Graphic 4 shows that there is no bias—either positive or negative—in the selection of split styles as team members. They are included on teams exactly as pure chance would dictate. Yet we know that there is a coordination inefficiency built in. That means that there must be something that offsets this loss.

The logic of this position is that if split styles were dysfunctional teams would have learned to exclude them as members. In that case, we would have expected to find fewer of them than chance would dictate. That is not what we find. It is reasonable to infer that split styles must bring at least as much positive value to team effectiveness as they cost in inefficiency.


WHY DON’T WE SEE MORE INEFFICIENCY?
Over half of the teams in the real world include at least 1 split style. So why don’t we see more frustration based on coordination difficulty? The answer is that not all split styles are equal. They come in degrees.

The strength of a split style has multiple determinants. The degree of difference between the two most used styles, the divergence with the closest peripheral style and the absolute level of style strengths are among the items affecting strength. However, for the purpose of this research blog the difference between the secondary style and the closest peripheral style can be taken as a reasonable index of strength.

Using this index, a mild split style can be defined as response set where a shift in 1 question on the “I Opt” Survey would resolve the split style into a more typical profile. There are 24 questions on the survey. Therefore 1 out of 24 would yield a 4.2% differential (1/24=.0417). In other words, over a long series of transactions we would expect a mild split style to be apparent to others only about 4% of the time. Clearly, this frequency is not enough to generate visible levels of inefficiency. What there is could easily be attributed to random chance.

Graphic 5 shows that almost half (46.6%) of split style population falls into this mild category. Coordination based inefficiency will be present. But the low frequency makes its effect almost invisible.

Graphic 5
DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE STRENGTH

Medium level splits require 2 or 3 response changes on the “I Opt” Survey to resolve the split style divergence. Using the same logic as applied to mild levels, this would mean that a medium level split would be visible roughly 10% of the time (2.5 average divergence/24=10.4%). This is likely to be noticeable but not highly dysfunctional.

The high category ranges from a minimum of 4 response changes (4/24≈17%) to the maximum actually recorded in the database of 9 changes (9/24≈38%). At these levels the split style will be noticeable and likely to materially affect team operation. However, this high level of split style strength occurs in only about 24% of the split style population. This means it will only be seen in 2.9% of the population (12% total splits x 23.9% strong ≈2.9%).

Split style inefficiency is visible to anyone who wants to look for it. However, noticeable levels occur only infrequently in a typical person’s experience. When it does rise to dysfunctional levels the tendency is to attribute the cause to some personal psychological quality of the individual involved. Without the “I Opt” lens with which to definitively isolate the cause, a psychological deficiency is likely to be the colloquial fallback. Unfortunately, this fallback speculation will do nothing to resolve the situation.


DOES THE KIND OF SPLIT MATTER?
Both the HA/RS and the RI/LP split have the same effect. They compromise the ability of others to accurately anticipate future behavior. In addition, Graphic 6 shows that both are equally likely to occur at all strength levels. This means that there is no basis for differential effects based on the type of split style being used.

Graphic 6

DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE STRENGTH BY TYPE OF SPLIT

DOES THE POSITION ON THE TEAM MATTER?
The most powerful negative effects occur with those who are immediately impacted by coordination missteps. The structure of the group determines how many people will be effected. The more people immediately impacted the greater the potential exposure.

Graphic 7a shows a clustering situation. A split style’s (shown in yellow circle) unexpected behavior can effect multiple people. This magnifies the potential consequences to the group. Graphic 7b illustrates an isolated condition. Here split style effects are minimized by the position at the end of a chain of activities. There are simply fewer channels through which negative effects can flow.

Graphic 7
ILLUSTRATION OF STRUCTURAL EFFECTS

Structural position is not the only factor determining the effect of a split style on a team. Frequency is another determinant. The exposure is obvious. The more frequently the person with a split style is referenced, the greater the probability of a coordination misstep.

Finally, bandwidth matters. Bandwidth is the number of different functional channels (i.e., different areas of activity) that the split style can influence. The greater the number of channels, the greater the number of different ways a coordination misstep can influence group effectiveness. Again this is an obvious exposure.

Structure, frequency and bandwidth are important for organizational advisers to recognize. They can be changed to mitigate split style effects. This gives the adviser the option of changing the situation rather than the person to mitigate split style effects. It is an option worth keeping in mind.


DOES A SPLIT STYLE AFFECT PROMOTION?
Graphic 8 shows that the proportion of split styles is roughly stable throughout the range of organizational ranks. Spit styles account for 12% of the population and also occupy about 12% of the positions at each level of the hierarchy. This suggests that a split style profile is no structural impediment to advancement. In any particular instance the cost imposed by coordination missteps can be outweighed by the gains offered by broadened scope. But in general, they do not.

Graphic 8
SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION BY ORGANIZATIONAL RANK

The presence of split styles at all organizational ranks also offers further evidence of the existence of some kind of benefit flowing with split styles. If the inherent coordination penalty was not being offset by some kind of advantage, promotional potential would be compromised. It is not.

It might be noted that the Vice President level seems to have a bit higher split style representation. The difference is significant but without substantial consequence. Graphic 9 shows that a “mild” split styles make up a larger proportion of the Vice President category. In other words, while there are more VPs using split style patterns, they tend to be the weaker variety. In terms of operational impact, the split style effects at all levels are probably about equal.

Graphic 9
“MILD” SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION

DOES SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION DIFFER BY FUNCTION?
Functions impose constraints on the people who staff them. For example, accountants must follow FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) directives to have their work accepted. This kind of external control limits the value that can be contributed by the broadened split style range. Thus it is to be expected that different functions will vary in their hospitality to split styles. Table 1 shows that this is exactly the case at non-supervisory levels.

Table 1
SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION BY FUNCTION

The functions appear to divide into three distinct groups. Functions with low levels of split style representation are clustered in activities that limit discretionary behavioral choices. These activities are constrained by some form of standard or supervisory control. This reduces the value of the split style’s broadened perspective while the coordination cost penalty remains. The net result is that these are not favorable split style environments.

The functions with high levels of split styles appear to share a large discretionary component. With the possible exception of engineers, participants in these functions tend to work outside of large groups. The value of broadened scope is increased while the coordination penalty is lowered. This means that the net value of the split style strategy is enhanced. The effect is that these become favorable environments for the split style profile.

This real world experience supports the position that people using the split style strategy generate both increased costs (i.e., coordination) and value (i.e., broadened scope). Functionally, they prosper in situations where discretionary action is highest (i.e., value) and coordination (i.e., cost) is the lowest. It makes theoretical as well as operational sense.


CAN SPLIT STYLE PERFORMANCE BE IMPROVED?
The value side of the split style equation is situational. It depends on the activity being pursued. It would probably be wise for people committed to a split style strategy to try to avoid functions that limit discretion and that are thickly entwined with coordination demands. While this is an option, in most organizational interventions this will not be a practical alternative. The functional and structural positions are usually fixed. But there is the other side of the equation, the cost.

The organizational cost of a split style centers on its coordination effect. Others cannot predict future behavior. The remedy is obvious. Become transparent. In other words, remove the need for others to predict. The person using a split style only needs to tell others of their intention. This will instantly improve organizational performance and increase the value of the person using the split style strategy. It is an easy win-win option.


SUMMARY
The split style profile is a rational choice for the individual employing it. On a theoretical basis it is the equal of any other profile. But on an organizational basis it is a two edged sword.

One edge of the sword is the increased cost. This arises because any split style has an inherent unpredictability component. This can make organizational missteps inevitable unless personal offsetting action (i.e., transparency) is adopted.

The other edge of the sword is increased value. This is situational. It does not occur everywhere and at all times. It occurs where the situation allows for and benefits from a broadened scope of action (e.g., see Table 1: Distribution by Function).

This research has shown that these cost and value components tend to offset each other in real world conditions. Split styles show up in about the same frequency as would be expected by chance.

The obvious prescription for addressing split style issues in Organizational Development is to maximize the value and minimize the cost. The value edge of the sword can be adjusted by seeking positions that benefit from the wide range that the spit style offers. The cost edge of the sword can be minimized or eliminated by adopting a transparent posture. This is not a difficult change. Plus there is a positive motive. It will improve person’s worth to the organization. This is likely to translate into increased rewards over both the short and long-term.