Team Tension: Causes and Management

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

INTRODUCTION 

Click Here to See Video

An earlier study that found that organizational structures had “built in” tension-reducing mechanisms  (see footnote #1—Organizational Level and Strategic Style).  This research applies those insights to teams.  A  tension producing thread was found to be rooted in the team format. Team tension has no “built in” control mechanism.  Control requires active intervention.

A YouTube video both condenses and expands on this research. It can be viewed by clicking the icon on the right. 


THE MECHANICS OF STRATEGIC STYLE
"Opt”® technology rests on the single assumption (i.e., a form of belief) that humans are information processors. Information processing has three necessary components: input, process and output. Without input there is nothing to process.  Without output nothing has been processed.  Without process (i.e., some form of conversion) nothing has changed.  This is traditionally expressed as:

Graphic 1

BASIC INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL

Graphic 1 shows the model as a linear sequence. This is accurate when dealing with well-understood, repetitive processes.  When dealing with unfamiliar issues the model becomes dynamic. Graphic 2 describes how human information processing typically works in team settings.

Graphic 2

HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL

Graphic 2 describes an iterative process. It begins by some intention. Intention is a reason to initiate an activity.  The person wants something. That “something” will be some type of desired “output.”

The desired output tells the “process” component what kind of “input” to try to acquire or accept.  Process then tells “output” what is possible given the input available. The model iteratively bounces back and forth constantly adjusting input and output. Ultimately it “homes in” on some kind of accommodation.

THE INPUT ELEMENT

The input element is governed by a construct called “method.”  Method is a continuum that ranges from unpatterned on one side to structured on the other. Graphic 3 visually describes the construct. 

Graphic 3

INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD

The unpattterned method (far left) is opportunistic.  It accepts almost any input that looks relevant to the issue at hand.  The flood of potential inputs is managed by culling. Things that do not work are quickly discarded.  Adequacy rather than optimization is the standard for acceptance. This is a highly responsive strategy since little time is spent filtering input quality. 

Structured methods (far right) use some kind of prearranged approach to select input. This might be any kind of formula, plan or scheme. Inputs falling outside the accepted framework are discounted or ignored.  Structure is typically thought out in advance. This advanced planning generally produces dependable outcomes of consistent quality.

 
Discord can arise based on input choice. For example, one person might dismiss a variable that does not “fit” the prearranged framework. Another person using an unpatterned method may see that same variable as promising.  However, discord does not necessarily result in tension.  Less than perfect input may be tolerated if it is nonessential. Delays might be forgiven if they do not compromise later efforts.

Team tension is personal.  It arises when someone believes that their intended output is being compromised by the behavior of another team member. To see how personal tensions might arise we need to look at the output element of the model.

THE OUTPUT ELEMENT
Output is measured on a continuum with thought on one side and action on the other.  Graphic 4 visually describes this construct.

Graphic 4

INFORMATION PROCESSING MODE

Action (the right side) are those activities that have a direct effect upon the issue in question.  Thought (the left side) refers to preparatory activities. It is used to guide action. These two stances carry very different behavioral implications.  

Action is visible, risk is material and consequences are potentially wide ranging.  Thought is private, behaviorally silent and risk is confined. Consequences are limited since no action affecting others has been taken.

Different input exposures and output consequences combine to produce a variety of postures.  To see how input and output elections interact we have to combine them into a single measurable form.

"I OPT" STRATEGIC STYLES

Combined input and output elections are illustrated in Graphic 5.  The graphic shows four possible general conditions.

Graphic 5

INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND MODE

Graphic 6 shows how each of the four basic information-processing dimensions are represented on the four axes of the basic “I Opt” grid. 
 

Graphic 6

INFORMATION PROCESSING –“I Opt” GRID RELATIONSHIP

Each axis of the “I Opt” grid relates to a particular combination of method (structured and unpatterned) and mode (action and thought). This is more clearly shown in Graphic 7 below.

Graphic 7

“I OPT” GRID AXES PARAMETERS

  

Each mixture of method and mode produces predictable outputs. For example the Reactive Stimulator style (top axis) is highly responsive (due to unpatterned input). It is also inclined to intervene directly on the issue in question (action output). The “I Opt” Snowflake in Graphic 8 (below) shows selected behaviors common to each of the “I Opt” styles (see footnote #2).

Graphic 8

“I OPT” GRID AXES PARAMETERS

  

People can adopt a posture by degrees.  “I Opt” measures the commitment to each style on a ratio scale (i.e., like a ruler where any person can be accurately compared to any other).  The measurement is displayed using an “I Opt” profile as shown in Graphic 9.

 

Graphic 9

“I OPT” PROFILE

A CORE SOURCE OF TEAM TENSION 

Tension is a heightened form of sensitivity. Method and mode elections produce expectations. People plan their own response based on these expectations. Graphic 10 shows the profiles of two people. The white area is where the two profiles share common perspectives. Areas outside of this common zone are potential sources of failed expectations. Thus these areas of divergence (i.e., red and blue) are personally threatening. This threat is a source of tension.

Graphic 10

“I OPT” PROFILE COMPARISON

For example Person 1 (red) is more likely to see a situation as warranting a rapid reponse. The other person (blue) might see that same situation as requiring thought and study. Some of these disagreements can be resolved by simple logic. However, many issues are fuzzy. This lack of clarity limits the usefulness of logic.

Team conditions are often characterized by multivalued logic (i.e., “Fuzzy” logic). Things have only a proportional degree of necessity or completeness.  The offended person can assign one value to a condition. The person doing the offending can assign another. Neither person can completely demonstrate the correctness of their position. This is the point that things begin to breakdown. 

Accusations and insistence replace logic.  When these approaches fail the only “reason” left for the condition is the person(s) causing it. The “reason” becomes a personal deficiency or malfunction. Attributions become the order of the day.

 

PERSONAL ATTRIBUTIONS

An attribution is a verdict or a pronouncement. It assigns a “cause” (i.e., a reason) for the behavior. Attributions tend to be final. Once a verdict is rendered there is little need to search for added evidence or greater understanding.  

Attribution potential lies in the very nature of information processing. Positions on each end of the method and mode band are mutually exclusive. Selecting one forecloses the options on the other end. This makes the resulting attributions reasonably predictable.

The direction and degree of potential discord is defined by the profile overlap. Areas where the profiles do not overlap give the nature of the likely attribution(s). The quite contemplation of the HA gives no evidence of interest. The responsiveness of the RS suggests imprudence. These and other likely attributions follow directly from the way a person must behave in order to execute their selected strategy.

The video outlines the logic for each style attribution in more detail.  For purposes of brevity these are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1

SAMPLE OF TYPICAL ATTRIBUTIONS BY STRATEGIC STYLE

 

TEAM TENSION

Teams are used where a diversity of perspectives is needed.  This means that the profiles of team members will always diverge.  The interactions of people holding these divergent profiles will thus always contain the seeds of team tension.

Whether or not interpersonal tension will encompass a team is indeterminate. It depends on the nature of team interconnections.  The more a particular source of tension directly effects others the more likely it will spread through the team. The connection acts as a vector through which tension can travel. A person whose interests are affected by a divergence is most likely to experience and to pass on tension.

Team composition also effects how tension might spread. High proportions of thought-based strategies (HA and RI styles) can dampen tension effects. These styles can offer options and alternatives. These can diminish or redirect internal conflicts. On the other hand, action based strategies tend to exaggerate the effects. An action response is definitive and tends to solidify positions. 

There is no general formula describing the extent and degree that interpersonal tension will spread in a team. However, tension almost always has a negative effect. Investments to minimize potential tension and/or its consequences will almost always yield a positive return.

METHODS TO MANAGE TEAM TENSION

The seeds of destructive tension are contained in each and every team that has been or will ever be created. Team tension will not always frustrate the goal being pursued. But it will always increase the cost. Thus it is always wise to consider ways to prevent or mitigate its effects.  These methods can include:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

There are a host of well-understood techniques designed to control event based activities. These are things that have a beginning and end point versus on-going operations. Milestones are a common element of all of these methods. 

Milestones define the expected events or conditions. They are located at points in time. This creates common understanding and expectations. Responsibility for milestones provides a basis to resolve any issues that may arise. The opportunity for team tension is thus minimized.

Project management methods require the ability to define in detail the steps in the process.  It is of limited value for activities with less than specific goals or for which the steps involved are not fully known.  Milestones can also be costly. Time and resources are needed to establish and maintain them.  However, project management methods will be helpful for situations where they can be applied.

ORIENTATION MANAGEMENT

A less expensive method of controlling tension is to get a broad agreement on the nature (not content) of the goal.  For example, a goal involving a large investment may demand high certainty.  Agreeing that a careful approach is appropriate puts everyone in the same mindset (e.g., HA and/or LP).

Graphic 11

ILLUSTRATION OF SECONDARY STYLE CAPABILITIES

The orientation strategy has two appealing aspects.  First, it creates a common direction for all team members. Graphic 10 shows that even a highly committed idea-oriented RI will have at least some capabilities in the disciplined LP and HA styles. These capacities, however modest, can be enlisted to contribute to the group effort. 

Secondly, the common understanding reduces the potential for conflict. It effectively prioritizes the criteria upon which decisions will be made. A potential source of tension has been disarmed.

CLASSICAL TRAINING

An even more general approach is training. The destructive aspects of tension come into play with emotions. Emotions are biochemical bodily responses. The interpretations of these bodily responses are called “feelings.” Feelings are the meanings that are assigned to the biochemistry being experienced.  Feelings are what guide action. Training can help people assign the correct meaning to their biochemical experience. Interactions can thus be guided into a more productive (or at least a less destructive) direction.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) programs can help. Their focus is psychological and center on self-understanding.  However, controlling team tension requires a focus on the group objective rather than individual well being. Any positive effect of EI on a group is indirect at best.

Teams are a social entity. Attempting to mediate the emotions person causes rather than those they experience more directly addresses the social core of teams.  Interested readers can jump-start a training program with a fully narrated 66-slide PowerPoint program. It is free and can be obtained simply by requesting it (see footnote #3).  The program can be used “out of the box” or serve as a launch point for creating your own presentation. 

PERSONAL COUNSEL

The Emotional Impact Management Report is specific to the individual but social in character. It helps a person manage the emotions they cause rather than what they experience. It is versatile and can be used as coaching support, a standalone pass-out or as a component of a training program.  Its low cost makes it a feasible option for any team (see footnote #4).

Graphic 12

ILLUSTRATION OF EMOTIONAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TARGETED DIAGNOSTICS AND PRESCRIPTIONS

General ways of minimizing team tension are helpful.  But specific teams composed of particular people benefit most from targeted methods. Targeted methods can home in on the actual issues the team is likely to encounter.

The first step is measuring information-processing postures. Graphic 10 (above) showed how probable divergences can be calculated. This identifies likely exposures.  The next step is to devise tools to offset the vulnerabilities. Appendix 1 offers samples of the kinds of tools that might be applied. Others can be devised to meet any particular situation.

Graphic 13

ILLUSTRATION OF EMOTIONAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT REPORT

Another option is to run an “I Opt” TeamAnalysis™ (see Graphic 13). This inexpensive report can be more cost effective than spending the hours or even days needed to design custom tools. It also has the advantage of unbiased thorough assessment (e.g., it considers coalitions, outlier effects, etc.).   The advice offered also extends beyond the basic roles, rules and process (see footnote #5 for more information).

SUMMARY

This research isolated a universal source of tension.  It traced how information-processing elections always carry the seeds of potential discord.  It proceeded to show how these elections can be translated into measurable “I Opt” profiles. These profiles can then be used to assess the potential for tension even before a team is actually formed. 

The direction and intensity of tension can be predicted from the difference in the “I Opt” profiles of people connected by some kind of team interdependency.  Because the nature of tension can be predicted, it can be controlled.

The research concludes by offering strategies for managing tension.  These vary in cost and required effort.  Selecting and competently applying the one best suited to particular circumstances will produce positive gains in almost any and every situation.

APPENDIX 1

SAMPLES OF “I Opt” STYLE BASED
TENSION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Mutual Respect: The more style diversity on a team, the more valuable is this option. Understanding the “I Opt” posture of others is usually enough to build in a level of tolerance. The knowledge forewarns of likely responses. With this understanding expectations can be better aligned.

Chunking: Groups characterized by structured styles might consider managing the size of the “chunks.” Projects and processes are typically broken down into discrete pieces. Smaller “chunks” increase specificity and limit the horizon over which performance is to occur.  Alignment becomes simpler and disjoints are less probable.

Pairing: Groups with style “outliers” can reduce their exposure to potential misalignments. People with complementary (not necessarily compatible) styles can be paired so that one party's preferences offset the other (e.g., HA and RS). This strategy confines tension while giving the people involved a common destiny. This can increase the motivation for arriving at an accommodation.

Meetings: Structured styles benefit from the fact that meetings require preparation (at minimum mental). Preparation increases awareness of the responsibilities undertaken.  Increased awareness improves the odds that timing expectations will be met. 

The unpatterned styles can also benefit. These highly responsive strategies tend to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Meetings can be used to alert group members to actions taken.  The opportunity for corrective action is thus enhanced. Generally, the more important the matter being addressed, the more frequent should be the coordination meetings.

Shifting: Structured styles can usually find very good reasons why a particular objective is being delayed. An inability to meet group expectations might be addressed by a policy of transferring responsibility rather than attempting to force completion. The potential embarrassment of being relieved of responsibility is often enough to motivate completion. 

Goodies: Meeting attendance can be an issue. If attendance cannot be compelled the attendees might be seduced. Inducements such as a good lunch, packets of business related materials, early access to important information might be sufficient to encourage attendance. An implied quid-pro-quo may also exert a minor but positive influence. People may feel a twinge of guilt about getting goodies while failing to deliver promised results.

Hurdles: Unpatterned strategies are likely to be timely but may deliver results of uneven quality. Specifying a quality standard might be used to offset quality variation. If quality cannot be prespecified some kind of preliminary review might be considered. The thrust of this option is to try to make sure that the product is “ready for prime time” before being considered by the group.

Deadlines: Structured styles tend to benefit from explicit deadlines that have consequence. Even things like the public exposure of failed commitments might suffice. The consequence can be anything that motivates completion.  People employing structured styles can be very adept at creating “reasons” for missed deadlines. 

Squeezing: Structured styles will generally take all of the time available before responding. Setting a target well before the “real” timing deadline can give the group the opportunity to adjust or contribute to the final result before finalization. 

Duration: Different styles are most productive in meetings of different duration. Structured styles can use long meeting times to fit things together—concepts for the HA and processes for the LP.  Unpatterned styles are using a more fluid strategy. For them short duration meetings are most productive. When setting duration it might be well to keep in mind that it may be possible to set interactions where only some—not all—of the people on a team meet on particular subjects.

The above are examples rather than an exhaustive list.  Other equally valid and effective strategies can be devised.  Generally, the more committed a person or group is to one particular strategic style, the more likely is a vulnerability to surface and the more valuable will be a tool to offset it.

 FOOTNOTES

(1) Organizational Rank and Strategic Style.  Google research blog published October 22, 2012 and available at http://garysalton.blogspot.com/2012/10/organizational-rank-and-strategic-styles_22.html .  A companion YouTube video both abbreviates and expands on the research and was published October 17, 2012 and is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqeGLvjU2Oc&feature=youtu.be.

(2) The “I Opt” Snowflakes are templates that identify characteristics associated with different strategic styles or patterns. They are designed so that individual or group "I Opt" profiles can be overlaid on them for self-discovery uses.  Snowflakes can be constructed to address a variety of areas (e.g., general behavior, corporate culture, learning, communication and emotional responses). Free pdf copies current snowflakes can be downloaded from
http://www.iopt.com/support-materials.html#snowflake

(3) A brief 6-minute video “I Opt” Emotion Training Program“can be viewed in the Coffee Break Videos section of iopt.com or directly on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SYR9QNOYm8.  You can obtain a free electronic copy of the entire program by contacting our offices by phone, email or snail mail using the contact information on www.iopt.com.

(4) The contents of the Emotional Impact Management report can be reviewed on the www.iopt.com website at http://www.iopt.com/emotional-impact.php.

 (5) “I Opt” TeamAnalysis™ Orientation (2008). A 10 minute video available on the iopt website at http://www.iopt.com/coffee-break-videos.html or directly on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBlAygPN3g.

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.