City Management

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


INTRODUCTION
Does management differ between municipalities and corporations? Municipalities are more tightly bound by legislative mandates. In addition, cities tend to be more unionized. Labor contracts more explicitly define what can and cannot be done. These factors are enough to throw up some flags. But there is more.

Municipalities are much closer to their client base than are their corporate brethren. City employees are likely to meet their constituents on the street or even live next to them. They are subject to daily scrutiny by blogs, newspapers, radio and television stations. Few corporations contend with this kind of transparency. And there is still more.

Up until recently jobs in the municipal sector have been viewed as more secure than their corporate counterpart. The popular perception is that this causes cities to attract people who value security over opportunity. If this is true it is likely to affect the kind of management that can and should be done.


This evidence-based research tests the direction and degree of the actual differences in city and corporate management. A video that examines the city executive element of this research in some detail is available on Youtube. Simply click the icon on the right to link to it.


THE SAMPLE
This study was drawn from 19 cities in 10 states. The cities ranged in size from 824 to 751,000 people. The average size was 128,900 and have a median (i.e., midpoint) of 73,900. The city data were the “I Opt” scores for 175 executives and 72 supervisors.

The corporate sample consisted of 5,476 people (executives and supervisors) for whom titles were known drawn from about 1,000 “for profit” firms. International locations are represented but the largest portion of this sample is United States based.

Management divides into two categories. Executives have distinct groups reporting to them or they head a distinct organizational function. Supervisors lead a particular group within a function.

The research base is not a random sample. But is large enough to be considered strongly indicative. The division of people by rank is believed to be reasonable in terms of the purposes of this study.


EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
“I Opt” scores for 175 city executives were compared to 4,963 corporate executives. “I Opt” scores translate directly into behaviors that affect management. A sampling of the behaviors predicted by “IOpt” strategic styles and patterns is shown in Table1.

Table 1
SAMPLE OF "I OPT" BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS

The average “I Opt” scores of city and corporate executives were compared. Differences were tested for statistical significance. The results are shown in Graphic 1.

Graphic 1
COMPARISON OF CITY AND CORPORATE EXECUTIVES

Graphic 1 shows that city and corporate executives are virtually identical in their decision making approach. Tests of significance confirm that both cities and firms have the same kind of people in their executive ranks. An “average” executive from either group can move to the other and—in terms of their approach to decision making—they would be indistinguishable.

Averages can hide as much as they disclose. Graphic 2 compares the proportion of city and corporate executives in three strength categories—high, moderate and low. For example, 20% of city and 15% of the corporate executives might score “high” in a style. The chart would show city employees with 33% more “high level” commitment in that style (i.e., <20%-15%= 15=" 33.3%">).

Graphic 2
CITY AND CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
"I OPT" STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

The differences in the action categories of Logical Processor (methodical action) and Reactive Stimulator (spontaneous action) are statistically insignificant. The differences could be just random variations around a common standard. Both city and corporate executives are distributed roughly equally among the three categories of strength in these action-oriented categories.

The analytical Hypothetical Analyzer (analysis, assessment, evaluation) is another story. There are more city workers with “high” levels of HA. A z-Ratio test of proportional significance shows that this difference is not a random variation. This means that if we were to take repeated samples, cities are likely to continue to have more executives in the “high” category than would corporations.

City executives also tend to clump more in the “high” category of the idea oriented Relational Innovator style (ideas, options, alternatives). The statistic just misses the academic standard (6% versus the 5% standard). However, chances are still 94 times out of 100 that the result would be the same if the sample were retaken. This is probably a real difference and is accepted as marginally significant.

The HA (analysis) and RI (ideas) are thought based strategies. The RI generates ideas and the HA analyzes them. Cities appear to attract and retain executives with high levels of this capacity. On the whole, city executives are “thinkers.”

There is another aspect of the style profile worth noting. Cities also have more people clustered at “low “ levels in these capacities (HA and RI) than do their corporate peers. Executives at opposite poles will tend to view decisions differently. For example, a person high in HA may want time to study while another low in HA could prefer to act quickly. This creates a natural source of tension as competing ideas and contesting views on the "right" way to analyze them work themselves out.

Corporate executives do not have to contend with this divergence. Their executives tend to cluster at “moderate” level of commitment. There is just less distance to bridge. This makes it easier for corporate executives to arrive at a common position. It is reasonable to expect that cities face a bigger coordination challenge among their executives than do corporations. In other words, corporations are likely to have an easier time at internal executive coordination than will their city peers.


SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT
City supervisors differ markedly from their executive colleagues. A total of 72 city and 513 corporate supervisors were contrasted. Graphic 3 shows the results.

Graphic 3
COMPARISON OF CITY AND CORPORATE SUPERVISORS

City supervisors put most emphasis on the Logical Processor (methodical action) strategy. They exceed their corporate peers by about 14%. This is likely to manifest itself in behaviors such as greater risk avoidance, more rigidity and higher detail sensitivity. The probable behaviors also include greater precision, heightened dependability and more determination. No style is all good or bad.

The high LP commitment has a corollary. The idea oriented RI style falls about 13% short of their corporate equals. This means city supervisors are less likely to offer totally new options, engage in freewheeling idea sessions or be as tolerant of dissent.

The difference in supervisor styles are strong enough noticeable. In addition, the style differences are statistically significant. It is probable that these differences are “real” and will be “seen” in city management.

Overall, city supervisors will reinforce the popular conception of city employees. They are likely to be measured in their response, follow rules closely and be less than empathetic. Their constituents are likely to notice these qualities. The fact that they will also be reliable, stable and committed will be less visible.


OVERALL PICTURE OF CITY MANAGEMENT
City executives are likely to have more ideas than their corporate counterparts. That means more ideas competing for approval. A minority of city executives with a low inclination toward idea generation may restrain this idea overabundance. But they are unlikely to prevail. More likely, the competing ideas will have to “fight it out” for dominance. In the process, tension is likely to be generated in excess of that produced in corporations.

As matters progress, another factor comes into play—analysis. City executives appear to be over-endowed with this capacity. What this means is that the high volume of ideas will likely be subject to the full spectrum analytical options. During this stage it is likely that different analyses will compete for depth of understanding. In other words, a game of analytical “one-upsmanship” is likely to evolve. This is likely to extend far beyond that experienced in corporations. Analysis is not free. The relative cost of city decisions is likely to outpace the cost of a similar corporate decision.

And it is still not done. As proposals move from ideas to implemented programs, there is still another hurdle. City supervisors are proportionately stronger in the disciplined Logical Processor (LP) style than their corporate brethren. This is a demanding approach. The goal is “do it right, the first time and every time.” The preparation needed to satisfy this goal is also not free. Costs in terms of time and money can reasonably be expected to exceed similar programs implemented in corporations.

Is the above scenario a bad thing? Not necessarily. On important decisions that seriously affect the well-being of the cities constituencies, it could be optimal. The problem is that this is a structural condition. It will happen on even minor or even inconsequential matters. In these latter cases, city resources are being wasted.

Overall, it appears that corporations do have a structural edge. This is not because the cities lack any strategic style capability. In fact, it is just the opposite. They appear to be over-endowed with capacities in idea generation, analysis and precise execution. This extra horsepower carries with it extra costs. This includes tension in the idea phase and both time and cost penalties in the analytical and implementation phases.

Counter-intuitively, the penalties paid by cities are not due to any “weakness.” They are due to strengths. The good thing about this condition is that correcting it is only a matter of focusing and directing strength already present. This is much easier and cheaper than acquiring absent capacities from the outside.


IMPROVING CITY EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING
The issues identified in this research are likely to resonate within the administration of many cities. There is a generic approach that is likely to help in a material way. It rests on the fact that everyone has an information processing preference. It cannot be avoided. No one can pay attention to everything around them all of the time. We all pay attention to some things and ignore others. As we do this we develop a "typical" method of processing information. This is an "I Opt" strategic style. It is what others see and react to.

An instrument that identifies strategic styles in a non-threatening, non-invasive and work-related manner will improve city functioning. The “I Opt” individual report serves that function. People can use it to share their preferences with others. Since every perspective is valid, this helps the people involved adjust their communication with each other. Transactions are smoothed.

The reason is simple. It is in everyone’s interest. A person seeking to convince another to adopt their position stands a better chance if they speak in a manner preferred by the person being convinced. The person on the receiving end gets the information in a way that they can evaluate without having to “translate” it. The more people that adopt this strategy, the smoother will be the decision transactions in which they are all engaged. No mystery, just common sense.

The general strategy outlined above has been demonstrated effective over many years. However, it has limits. It is individually oriented. The decisions in cities are group based efforts. The specific mix of people in the group matters. Improving this aspect of city governance requires tools able to assess a group as a group. In other words, ALL of the people involved interacting SIMULTANEOUSLY. And any particular mix of people may not fully reflect the national profile outlined in this research.

Further advancing city improvement requires an assessment each particular group within city government. That assessment must be quick, inexpensive and accurate. The result should be a diagnostic uniquely targeted to the specific conditions within that group. In addition, specific actions needed to remedy that group’s vulnerabilities should be specified. The “I Opt” TeamAnalysis™ satisfies these conditions. Generic team building processes may help. But they cannot match the tailored interventions provided by “I Opt” technology.


IMPROVING CITY EXECUTIVE-SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT
If supervisory management is included in the interventions outlined above, many of the issues involved in the relation of executives to supervisors will have been resolved. But it is likely that some will remain. Again, the issue is the strength of commitment rather than the absence of a particular quality.

The supervisory levels are characterized by a virtual unanimous subscription to the Logical Processor (methodical action) strategic style. The result is a natural dichotomy of perspective between executives and supervisors.

Executives tend to value thought, integrity, creativity and compelling logic. The supervisory elements are in pursuit of perfection in execution. They tend to value and expect explicit “how to” specification. They also need time to hone a new direction to a point where they are absolutely sure it works. Finally, they need to see how the new course “fits in” with all of the other things they have to do. When these conditions are met they are able to execute a course of action with precision.

City supervisors will probably view the executive’s efforts as a half-baked effort. For them, the job is done when detailed, step-by-step procedures are in place and fully tested. Executives are likely to believe the job done when plans have been laid, approvals received and responsibilities delegated. A likely outcome of executive-supervisory relations is tension. One party sees the job as done—only execution remains. The other sees a giant gap that remains unfilled.

Viewed in this manner it is obvious that nether city executives or supervisors are “right” or “wrong.” The issue lies in the interface between the two groups. And the gap between the groups is broader than that experienced in corporations. In corporations the groups are distinct but closer together.

Again, identifying the differences in decision making processes will help inform both parties as to exactly what is “going on” between them. Here, a little more effort devoted to why the processes favored by executives and supervisors are both necessary to effective city functioning is probably warranted. The LP style favored by the supervisors is naturally skeptical and will probably require some additional effort to actually “take.” However, once it does a new level of understanding is gained. Experience in applying “I Opt” technology almost invariably creates an insight that automatically improves tolerance for different views. This outcome alone is enough to improve the functioning and productivity of city government.

Further gains are available by helping executives adjust the nature and way their direction is given. The natural tendency will be for executives to follow the “golden rule.” It they do, they are likely to miss the mark. A better alignment of the direction to the needs of the people getting those directions can go far. This is a simple but not an obvious process. A bit of outside counsel explaining what needs to be done, why it is needed and how to go about it is all that is usually required.


SUMMARY
Cities face a managerial challenge. It exists within the executive ranks and between the executive and supervisory ranks. The difficulty is founded in strength, not weakness. The strength of all parties can make the relationship between functions and levels a challenge.

The challenge cities face is greater than their corporate counterparts. This translates to more opportunity. Improving things by 25% means more when that 25% is multiplied by a big number than a small one. This means that it is wise for cities to invest in organizational interventions to a greater extent than do their corporate kin. This is common sense, it is not rocket science.

“I Opt” technology is designed to be accessible to everyone. However, city executives and supervisors have much to do. Spending time personally assessing the implications of their strategies is bound to be low on the “to do” list. Providing them help in condensing, digesting and implementing effective improvement strategies would seem to be a smart. A small investment can yield high and continuing dividends.

The benefit for the organizational intervention strategies will accrue to all involved. Things get done faster and at less expense. City workers get a more hospitable, effective and efficient environment. Citizens would see a workforce more attuned to their needs. The investment in improving organizational functioning is small. Yet it could be one of the most effective tools available for helping cities meet the challenges of difficult economic times.

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.