Alcoholic Recovery: Changes In Worldview

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


INTRODUCTION
Organizational Development focuses on how the individual contributes to organizational goals. But the current in this stream also runs the other way. Organizations can affect the individual.

This study focuses on 103 recovering alcoholics who are members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). They agreed to participate in the research on an individual basis. In compliance with the traditions of AA, there was no participation by the organization itself in any form whatsoever.

The study finds a statistically significant relationship between the length of sobriety and the information processing strategies being used to navigate life. The degree of direction and degree of change are both predictable and explainable.

This study is the evidence-based foundation of a three
research blog series. Research blogs covering the 12-Steps and another addressing AA organizational factors are available in the Applied Research listing on www.iopt.com. A video summary of all three research blogs in this series can be found at www.iopt.com in the "Coffee Break
Videos" section or by clicking the icon on the right.



PROCESS
Alcoholism is a bio-chemical dependency. It is not a behavioral defect. Information processing elections did not cause the condition and changes in it cannot “cure” the dependency. However, knowledge of the processes involved may help to manage it.

Any form of control is predicated on the information processing strategies. No control system will work if the subject is not paying attention to the control variables. This applies to external controls and those created for self-control by the individual themselves.

Alcoholism is supported by the information processing strategy being used. The strategy consists of accepting a particular form of input, processing (i.e., interpreting) it in a specific way and issuing behavior (i.e., output) of a typical character. Repeated application of this mechanism produces beliefs (e.g., things that continue to work are deemed “true") and values (e.g., the frequency with which a behavioral option tends to be used evidences perceived value).

This process can create “worldview” which is compatible with alcoholism. A change in worldview is an often cited as a condition of maintaining sobriety(1). This is an implied recognition of the centrality of information processing in successfully recovering from alcohol dependency.

The concept of “worldview” is expressed in this study using the term "I Opt" strategic profile. A strategic profile has a specific meaning that can be measured, quantified and tested. It is a superior research tool to the more nebulous concepts of “worldview” that rely on adjectives and analogies for definition.


GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE
The research sample included 45 women and 58 men. Graphic 1 compares these proportions to a national sample of about 7,500 members published by Alcoholics Anonymous (2004) (2).

Graphic 1
GENDER COMPARISON OF RESEARCH SAMPLE TO
NATIONAL ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS SAMPLE

A z-ratio test for the difference in proportion indicates that gender differences do not rise to levels of academic significance. It is reasonable to judge that the sample to be representative of the roughly 60%-40% split of the larger AA population.

The strategic profiles of males and females within the research sample were compared. The results are shown in Graphic 2.

Graphic 2
MALE AND FEMALE STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

On average, the two genders are virtually identical in the “I Opt” strategies that they use. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that any discoveries made in this research are equally applicable to both genders.


AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE
The age distribution of both the research sample and the national Alcoholics Anonymous sample are shown in Graphic 3.

Graphic 3
AGE COMPARISON OF RESEARCH SAMPLE TO
NATIONAL ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS SAMPLE

Graphic 3 shows a clear distinction between the sample and the AA population. The average age for the national AA sample was 48 years while the research sample respondents averaged 26.4 years old. This is a marked difference. It gives rise to a key question. Is age related to the choice of the strategic styles used to navigate life?

One way of approaching this issue is to plot age against the strength of a strategic style. Graphic 4 shows the result of this comparison applied to the LP (i.e., disciplined action) style.

Graphic 4
AGE VERSUS LOGICAL PROCESSOR STRATEGIC STYLE

Visually there is no apparent relationship between age and the LP style. An R2 statistic confirms this. R2 describes the degree that a variable (e.g., age) can be used to predict another (e.g., LP style strength). In Graphic 4, age predicts (“explains” in statistic jargon) about 1.5% of the Logical Processor variation. Table 1 shows that the remaining styles also minimal effect.

Table 1
INFLUENCE OF AGE ON STRATEGIC STYLE (R2)

While not conclusive, the data strongly suggests that age and strategic styles are unrelated. This view is confirmed by experience in over 200,000 measurements conducted using “I Opt” technology. It is reasonable to conclude that the age distribution of the research sample will not be an impediment to the conclusions of this research.

SOBRIETY AND “I OPT” STRATEGIC STYLE

The research compared the average strategic style profiles at different lengths of sobriety. The results are shown in Graphic 5.

Graphic 5
STRATEGIC STYLE PROFILE BY LENGTH OF SOBRIETY

Graphic 5 immediately reveals that a systematic process is in operation. For ease of reference, a circled number has been included on Graphic 5 to identify style.

The spontaneous RS (circled 1) column shows a drop (21%) as a person moves from short to mid term sobriety. Disciplined action LP (circled 2) picks up most of this drop by increasing its strength by 43%. This makes some sense. A greater shift to the analytical HA (circled 3—11% increase) would not be of great value to a mind clouded by alcohol. HA understanding must await effective computational resources. Similarly, idea generating RI (circled 4—a 4% drop) is not much affected in this initial phase. It still has value. For example, ideas can be generated showing to how the new LP behavior “fits in” to the person’s life.

Moving from mid to long-term sobriety the average strategic profile changes further. The quick acting RS (circled 1) drops still further but it is NOT picked up by the disciplined LP (circled 2). This again makes sense. At this stage the structured processes of the LP have already been installed. The mind is clearing. Now understanding is needed. The HA strategy responds (circled 3) with a large 36% increase in strength. With this knowledge, the person can fashion strategies that meet the unanticipated challenges that bio-chemical dependency will undoubtedly present in the future.

There is also a drop in the idea oriented RI (circled 4) as a person moves from mid to long-term sobriety. This is probably a secondary effect. Both the RS and the RI operate using unpatterned (e.g., spontaneous) input. The large drop in RS withdrew some of the “raw meat” that the RI needs. Without this “food source” the RI strategy drops in value. Hence the decline in usage.

The fact that there is systematic process is beyond challenge. However, there is a legitimate question as to whether this is just happenstance or if it betrays a fundamental underlying process. This is a question statistical significance is designed to answer. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF STYLE CHANGES
t-Test Assuming Unequal Variances

The significance tests bear out the logic outlined above. The shift from short-term RS to mid-term LP and HA styles stand out. Similarly, the shift from mid to long-term in the increased use of the analytical HA strategy fits in. The insignificance of the RI change appears to conform to the judgment that it is a derivative outcome. It is not in the causal chain.

The change in profiles describes a change in worldview. Different inputs are accepted, different processes (e.g., interpretation) are employed and different behaviors (output) are issued. A question remains. How does this fit into the Alcoholic Anonymous recovery program?

FIT WITH ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

The famous AA 12-Steps are literally an exact fit to the results of this study (3). A full specification of the fit is beyond the scope of this evidence based research blog. It is addressed more thoroughly elsewhere (http://garysalton2.blogspot.com). For purposes of this research the logic is just outlined.

The 12-steps can be seen as a blueprint for the design, installation and maintenance of a control system. This perspective fits. AA does not claim cure, just control. Stripped of doctrine and viewed as staged process the 12-steps become guide to control individual information-processing strategies.

Table 3
ORIGINAL 12-STEPS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS(3)

Steps 1 through 3 call for surrender and acknowledgment of a knowledge source that is outside of oneself. Accepting these prescriptions mean that addiction can be controlled and there is a way to do it. This is fundamental. Without this belief there would be no motive to abandon the strategy now being used.

Step 4 and 5 call for an inventory identifying behavioral shortcomings. These are to be specified EXACTLY. The BEHAVIORS that require change are firmly targeted. This is ground prep. It will become the scaffold for the structures used by the LP strategy to be adopted. Steps 6 and 7 continue this theme by obtaining an agreement that the identified behaviors require replacement, not just modification.

As progress proceeds though Step 7, behaviors have begun to be modified. Identifying something as “wrong” creates a tendency toward avoidance. Avoidance is a behavior change. Steps 8 through 10 require making amends to the specific people who have been harmed. This is a gut wrenching process that burns in the consequences of the “wrongs” that have been done. A person’s emotional systems are engaged in a massive way. The rational has now been combined with the emotional. The whole brain is now engaged.

Early in this process a sponsor was acquired as a guide to and guardian of the steps. They help insure that self-deception is kept to a minimum. Sponsors offer experience-based options and alternatives. They provide encouragement and act as stimulants to progress. Effectively, their role is to help a person begin to self-construct a behaviorally based framework on which they can rely.

Steps 11 and 12 now kick in. Step 11 calls for knowledge and understanding. To this point “reasons” have not been stressed. During the Phase 1 stage behavior is guided by the sponsor and by inference from the stories in the “Big Book.” The relatively small 11% change in the analytical HA strategy between the short and mid-term stages reflects this lack of “why” emphasis. The picture formed to this point is the installation of a practical behavioral framework fashioned by the individual to meet their own immediate situation.

Step 12 provides a motive continuing the quest. Knowledge is the vector on which the message mandated by Step 12 will be carried. Further, teaching someone else is the surest way of learning yourself. These two steps—11 and 12— almost mandate the use of the analytical HA strategy. And this is exactly what happens. Between the mid and long-term phases of the thought-based HA style increases 37% while the action based LP remains at its higher level without change. The scaffold had already been created. Now it is a matter of strengthening it.

Strategic styles can respond to persistent influences from any source. The 12-steps have built-in methods of controlling for these external influences. Step 10 calls for repeated behavioral reassessment and adjustment. Step 11 creates a continuous process of ever increasing understanding. Step 12 insures that the entire AA process remains engaged on an active level.

There are other tools embedded in the AA arsenal. The participation in AA meetings reinforces as well as introducing elements of social control. The 12-traditions limit external influences from both outside and within AA. The AA system is designed to give the individual an environment in which they can construct their own personally tailored solution.

SUMMARY

This study has provided evidence-based support for the veracity of the AA 12-step system. It has also shown how that system works to produce a systematic change in the way people perceive, understand and operate in the world—a change in worldview (4).

It has shown how the 12-steps can be stripped of their doctrinal element and viewed as a formula for the construction and maintenance of a self-constructed management system. This view does not negate the religious overtones of AA. It just introduces another dimension. Both views can coexist. Acceptance of one does not exclude the other.

Programs trying to emulate the success of AA can benefit by an understanding offered in this analysis. For example, in the AA the subject selects the sponsor themselves and the sponsor agrees to the undertaking. This automatically ensures both parties will understand each other. Non-AA programs tend to rely on assigned counselors. The degree of “fit” between the counselor and client is a matter of chance. We now know how information processing works (i.e., input>process>output) and can measure it. This means that the selection of counselors can be refined with a likely improvement in sobriety outcomes.

Charities and government agencies supporting the recovery of alcoholics might also benefit. They now must rely on a “one size fits all” approach. By introducing measurement, this study offers a vehicle for judging the resources required for a particular person or group. For example, it can be reasonably anticipated that someone highly committed to the spontaneous RS strategy will require support longer than another person who is less RS committed.

The understanding contributed by this research is judged to be material. However, in closing homage must be paid to Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a system that guides a person toward to constructing their own individually tailored solution to help control their affliction. The 12-Traditions protect the process itself from being “taken over” by either internal factions or external agencies. Regardless of the iterative manner in which it was constructed, the work of Bill Wilson and Bob Smith in creating AA bears the mark of genius.

REFERENCES

(1) Referencing the Google Search Engine will produce hundreds of thousands of examples. Citing specific authors to lend credibility or authority to this statement of worldview change in the recovery from alcoholism is superfluous.

(2) Alcoholics Anonymous 2004 Membership Survey. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services' General Service Office. 2005. http://www.webcitation.org/5lyIHfv6f. Retrieved 6-27-2010.

(3) Alcoholics Anonymous (June 2001). "Chapter 5: How It Works" (PDF). Alcoholics Anonymous (4th ed.). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. ISBN 1893007162. OCLC 32014950. http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_bigbook_chapt5.pdf.

(4) The self-imposed brevity of Research Blog studies preclude elaboration on the implications of these findings. They are set out in greater length on the Applications Research Blog at www.garysalton2.blogspot.com.

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.