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 As yet unpublished ongoing research has revealed many similar instances.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.

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.

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.

How Styles Affect Promotion Potential

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


ABSTRACT
"I Opt" research has revealed a statistically significant connection between "I Opt" strategic styles and organizational rank (e.g., manager, VP, CEO). The research is also able to reveal why this condition exists. The connection between style and rank is not a mere association. It is causal in the sense that X causes Y. The only way the relationships will change is if information flows change.

The implications for Leadership Development are clear. The current stress on skill sets and techniques is necessary but not sufficient. Prospective leaders must master a sequence of processing patterns suitable to the level to which they aspire. What works at one level will be suboptimal for another. There is no "one" leadership strategy suited to all levels.


THE DATABASE
The statistics used were developed using a database in which rank can be associated with "I Opt" strategic style scores. This study includes the following elements:

124 CEO/Presidents________This is the single individual who either
________________________owns the firm or is responsible only to
________________________the Board of Directors.

460 Vice Presidents________These are corporate level Vice Presidents
________________________who can make policy for the entire
________________________organization. It includes people identified
________________________as Presidents of subsidiaries. Nominal
________________________Vice Presidents who are responsible for
________________________ departments, plants or other subsets
________________________of the larger organization are classified
________________________ under Manager/Directors.

2,090 Managers/Directors____These are people who are responsible for a
________________________function within the firm. They are
________________________ typically accountable for multiple
________________________supervisors and/or for the deployment
________________________of significant assets.

295 Supervisors____________These are first level supervisors who
________________________typically manage people who perform
________________________a particular activity within the firm.

6,028 Non-Supervisory_____These are people responsible for an activity.
________________________It includes high level professionals (e.g., MD,
____________________________Ph.D., CPA, etc.) as well as unionized hourly
________________________workers. Most people in this category are
________________________professional level salaried employees.


The subjects of the study come from all parts of the United States. There is also a substantial international component (e.g., Europe, South America, Asia, Australia, Middle East, etc.). The firms in the sample include manufacturing, health care, finance, banking, non-profit, universities, government and many others. It is a reasonable basis from which to draw general conclusions.


DOMINANT DECISION STRATEGIES
"I Opt" Strategic Styles are strategies people use to resolve issues that arise in their lives. The dominant style is the first one a person is likely to try if it is not precluded by the nature of the issue. The four strategic style possibilities are:

Reactive Stimulator____The RS strategy uses unpatterned (e.g.,
_______________________spontaneous) input and action output.
_______________________It is characterized by rapid reaction
_______________________using expedient means.

Logical Processor______The LP strategy uses structured (e.g.,
___________________________planned, logical, systematic, etc.) input and
_______________________an action output. It is characterized by
_______________________exacting detail, high efficiency and
_______________________reliable execution.

Hypothetical Analyzer__The HA strategy uses structured input
____________________________and thought (e.g., plans, assessments,
_______________________recommendations, etc.) output. Well-
_______________________reasoned thought, exhaustive research
_______________________and complete understanding characterize
_______________________this approach.

Relational Innovator___The RI strategy uses unpatterned input
_______________________and thought output. It is characterized
_______________________by an ability to identify unusual
_______________________relationships and quickly generate
_______________________unexpected options.

The four strategic styles are NOT merely names attached to statistical associations. They are derived from theory and have been statistically verified along all eight dimensions of validity. They represent stable categories that can be relied upon.

Chart 1
DOMINANT STRATEGIC STYLE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL RANK

Chart 1 compares rank to the dominant strategic style. It shows an explicit and consistent relationship. The higher the rank, the more likely the person is to use the RS and RI styles. The “stair-step” pattern suggests that the underlying cause is systematic. It appears to affect every level and every style in a methodically progressive way.

While the RS and RI styles are favored, they are not exclusive. At every level each style has at least some representation. This can have several explanations. First, styles say nothing about intelligence. You can be a genius using any style. Intelligence is a key competitive factor in the competition for rank. It is likely that this factor is reflected in the data.

Another factor is the nature of the firm. There are firms in the sample where exacting standards, high efficiency or methodical execution are keys to success. Here the LP style might be favored (e.g., food packaging, regulatory agencies and sub-assembly manufacturing). In other firms mastery of complex systems or avoiding error can give the HA style the edge (e.g., insurance, chip manufacturing and safety engineering).

Still another factor affecting strategic style representation is the stage in the life cycle of the firm. For example, about 40% of the CEOs in Chart 1 who have a dominant RS style were founders of their firm. This risk-taking, action-oriented style is well suited to launching a firm.

While there is room for everyone at every organizational level, there is nonetheless a clear bias toward the strategies using unpatterned (i.e., spontaneous) input—the RS and RI—at higher levels. This relationship is statistically significant at levels that fully meet academic standards (p<.001 ). This is not a statistical accident. Something is causing these results.


STRENGTH OF STRATEGIC STYLES
The dominant style analysis is categorical. It only tells you which style is dominant. It says nothing about how much the strength of one style exceeds another. For example, the strength of RI style may only be microscopically higher than the RS style. The categorical analysis would classify person as 100% RI.

Fortunately, “I Opt” can determine the exact strength of each style within a person’s behavioral repertoire. Since there are only four possible styles, the strengths can be stated as a percentage.

Chart 2
DOMINANT STRATEGIC STRENGTH
BY ORGANIZATIONAL RANK

Style strength in Chart 2 shows the same relation between rank and style as did the categorical analysis. Once again the relationship is statistically significant (a free copy of the statistical analysis is available upon request). This finding is not a random event. It has an objective cause.

WHY PARTICULAR STYLES ARE FAVORED

The stair step pattern within the “I Opt” strategic styles argues for a systematic cause. Every step up the ladder must involve increasing levels of whatever is driving the relationship. The one factor that varies directly with rank is information flow. It happens in every organization, industry and culture. It is a universal that can explain the finding across the broad range of industries sampled in this blog.

The Input Variable
The decision horizon moves outward with increases in rank. The information available becomes less concrete. There are no “facts” for what has not yet occurred. There are only inferences. The longer the time horizon, the less certain are those inferences.

The LP and HA styles use structured input (e.g., planned, logical, systematic, etc.) to excel at lower levels. They can take full advantage of the depth of information available. They are efficient and effective. The RI and RS styles use unpatterned input (e.g., spontaneous, naturally visible, unplanned, etc.). The random elements in this stream result in a loss of efficiency and effectiveness. The result is that the LP and HA have a natural competitive advantage at activities typical at lower levels.

The RS and RIs use of unpatterned inputs gives them an advantage at higher levels. They are better able to “see” possibilities that lie outside the scope of present conditions, assumptions or expectations. They are more comfortable with the uncertainty and vagueness. It gives them a competitive advantage at higher levels.

The Output Variable
Both the RS and RI use unpatterned input. The fact that the RI tends to exceed the RS at the upper levels (i .e., VP and CEO) must be due to something other than input. That “something” is output elections.

The RS is an action-based strategy. It is a quick, decisive posture that seeks to directly cause the world to be different. Since action only makes sense in the relatively near-term, a natural shorter-range focus is created. In addition, the RSs tendency to use of expedient means increases risk. The cost of error grows as more assets are put into play or as strategic directions of a firm are changed. This caps the value of the RS at the highest levels. There is a limit to how much risk any organization can take.

Like the RS, the RI strategy uses unpatterned input. Unlike the RS, it is a thought-based strategy. It does not require action to be satisfied. It is focused on new ideas, novel relations, unexpected theories and other change-oriented initiatives. Since they are not forced into quick action, lower levels can vet these propositions before implementation. But, since they arise at a high level they cannot be dismissed out of hand. The possibility will be considered. There is no capacity limit in organizations to ideas. This gives the RI a competitive advantage over RS as rank increases.

Other Factors
There are other factors that can create advantages between the various styles. Visibility is one. Decisive action and unusual ideas get more attention than consistent performance. A natural affinity with people already at a high level is another. High level executives promote lower level ones. Talking the “same language” as higher level people helps promotional chances.

These and many other such factors operate in the real world. However, none of them would be able to completely offset the advantages or disadvantages created by information flows. If one were to use these other devices to gain high position, inferior performance would eventually be noticed. The likely result is replacement. Other tools might be able to get you to high position but they will not keep you there.


LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS
The findings reported in this blog expose a gap in current leadership development programs. A focus on techniques, methods and practices is valuable but insufficient. Candidates for leadership must be taught how to adjust their information processing profile to match the level that they are targeting.

This is not a one-size-fits-all prescription. Because RI is favored at the CEO level does not mean that aspiring leaders should be guided toward the highest level of that strategy. This would insure failure. To survive the lower levels leaders have to have at least threshold levels of LP and HA. Remember that you have to get through the lower levels to reach the higher.

The above observation highlights an interesting aside. The data used in this study focuses on success. It neglects to count the people who have suffered the consequences of failure in their attempt to rise up the hierarchy. For every RS and RI executive who has risen to VP or CEO there are many who have been fired, demoted or sidelined. The price of leadership development that neglects strategic styles is not only the failure to develop the talent in the LP/HA pool. It is also the unnecessary attrition of the RS and RIs.

It is beyond the scope of this blog to delve into changing strategic styles. Suffice it to say that we all have some capacity in each style. The more we use a style, the more skilled we become at it. The greater the skill, the more likely we are to use it again. It sounds easy. It is not. However, it is doable and it is an obligation of a complete Leadership Development program to provide the knowledge that is necessary to navigate the necessary transitions.