The Nursing MS Degree in Management

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


INTRODUCTION
This research blog investigates whether students attending Second Career and traditional Master of Science programs are equal sources of nurse management talent. The research finds that program participants are different and will appear so to observers. But they are virtually identical in their ability to provide “management ready” talent.

The research then compares nursing with people pursuing a master’s degree in other professions. It finds that nursing MS programs provide less than half as much managerial perspective to the talent pool than do other professions.

Finally, a Migration Strategy of offsetting the shortage of nursing is offered. The strategy can be applied to any nurse (AA, BS or MS) and provides a non-threatening, measured option for both the nurse and the medical institution. This strategy is more fully specified in an Addendum to this research blog.


DIFFERENT KINDS OF MS GRADUATES
There are two major programs producing nurses with MS degrees. The traditional program admits nurses who have completed undergraduate nursing programs. The Second Career MS program admits students with who completed their undergraduate degree in other fields.

Data is available from 29 students completing Second Career Master of Science (MS) degrees and 81 students in a traditional MS program at a major research university. Graphic 1 shows that the students in the two programs are statistically different along two dimensions.

Graphic 1
SECOND CAREER AND TRADITIONAL
MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMS

Traditional students put more reliance on the idea-oriented RI strategy. The Second Career students put greater emphasis on the disciplined action of the LP style. However, this is not the relevant test for the issue at hand. That issue is how well the two group profiles match the needs of nursing management.

Graphic 2 shows only one statistically significant difference between Second Career students and existing management. Second Career students tend to use the innovative RI strategic style less than does existing management.

Graphic 2
SECOND CAREER AND TRADITIONAL MASTER OF SCIENCE
STUDENTS vs. ESTABLISHED NURSING MANAGEMENT

The difference in innovation based RI is large enough for both educators and employers to notice it. However, no single strategic style determines overall managerial “fit.” That requires considering all of a person’s strategic styles simultaneously.

To test the overall “fit” a composite profile was constructed by averaging the “I Opt” scores from all hospital management levels (from CNO to Assistant Nurse Manager). Student profiles falling within 30% of this standard were deemed to share management’s information processing perspective. They are likely to approach issues in about the same manner as existing management. Effectively, they can be seen as “management ready.”

Graphic 3 shows the MS Program participants who lie within 30% of the management standard. The circles (i.e., centroids) are Cartesian averages. They locate a point of central tendency along all four of the “I Opt” styles simultaneously. Blue circles are the Second Career students, the yellow are the traditional. The red circle is the composite management centroid.

Graphic 3
SECOND CAREER AND TRADITIONAL
MASTER OF SCIENCE STUDENTS SCREENED
BY 30% MANAGERIAL CANDIDATE CONVENTION

The two types of MS programs appear to be functionally equivalent. Variation in some styles is compensated for by differences in others. The dispersion of both student groups is roughly equal.

Table 1
PROPORTION MS STUDENTS WHO
DEVIATE 30% OR LESS FROM THE
EXISTING MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Table 1 below reinforces equivalence. It shows that both programs are virtually identical in the depth of talent they provide. About 17% of the people in both programs have an “I Opt” profile that “fits” with the existing management. For managerial assessment purposes, the two programs can be treated as a single entity.



ADEQUACY OF THE “MANAGEMENT READY” NURSING POOL
Having two MS programs able to supply management talent is to be welcomed by the profession. However, the adequacy of the absolute size of the management pool merits investigation.

One method of testing adequacy is to compare nursing MS students with master degree candidates in other professions. A non-nursing average management standard was constructed using 4,945 executives from all industries and areas. The positions sampled were from General Manager through supervisor. The “I Opt” profiles of these executives were averaged to arrive at a non-nursing management standard.

A total of 611 masters’ candidates in disciplines such as engineering, business, computer science and manufacturing science from five universities provided a non-nursing sample. These students will typically fall under the supervision of the management identified as the standard. Students falling within a 30% range of the non-nursing “all management” standard are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
NON-NURSING AND NURSING MASTERS CANDIDATES
SCREENED BY 30% MANAGERIAL CANDIDATE RULE

The results are striking. Nursing has less than half of the depth of “management ready” masters’ candidates. One cause might be a difference in the standard being used. In other words, nursing might have a management standard (represented by the centroid of the average manager) more challenging than that of the other professions. Graphic 4 addresses this possibility.

Graphic 4
NURSE AND NON-NURSE ENTRY LEVEL SUPERVISORS INFORMATION PROCESSING PROFILES

Statistical tests confirm the obvious. There is no statistically significant difference between the two management groups. In information processing terms, nursing management could move to industry and nobody is likely to notice the difference—and vice versa

If the profiles of nurse/non-nurse management are the same and the methodology is the same, the character of people being attracted to nursing MS programs must be different. This is exactly the case. But the difference is not obvious. It requires the exact measurement capabilities of “I Opt” technology to lay the reason bear.

Graphic 5 shows that there are statistically significant differences between nursing and non-nursing masters’ candidates. The nurses are more idea-oriented (RI) and fall a bit short in their inclination toward analysis and assessment (HA). However the size of the differences do not appear to be enough to account for nursing having 50% fewer “management ready” candidates.

Graphic 5
NURSE AND NON-NURSE
MASTER OF SCIENCE STUDENTS

If averages cannot account for the divergence the answer must be in the distribution of students. This is exactly the case. Graphic 6 shows the centroid distribution of both nursing and non-nursing masters’ students. The non-nurse portion of the graphic uses a 110 person random sample drawn the 611-person non-nursing students. This makes the non-nursing group visually comparable to the 110 nurse MS population. There is no need to make mental adjustments for different size samples.

A quadrant by quadrant comparison reveals that the nurses are more widely scattered than their non-nursing counterparts. Nursing is apparently more hospitable to and thus attracts a wider range of perspectives than do other professions. The compassion that drives many nurses is more widely spread that are the mathematical capabilities of engineers or the logic of the computer scientists. This is as it should be in a healing profession.

Graphic 6
NURSE AND NON-NURSE MASTERS CANDIDATE
"MANAGEMENT READY" DISTRIBUTION

The effect of the dispersion of MS nurses is seen in the magnification. The circle in the center shows the number of people falling within 30% of the respective management standard (i.e., the green and red circles). Even though the sample size is the same, there are twice as many yellow circles among the non-nursing professions. The position of the management centroids differs slightly. But the wider ranging “I Opt” profiles among the nurses’ accounts for most of the dispersion.

IMPLICATIONS
Table 3 compares nurses in the MS programs with general staff nurses (including both graduate and non-graduate nurses).

Table3
NURSING MS CANDIDATES Vs STAFF NURSES
SCREENED BY 30% MANAGERIAL CANDIDATE RULE

The MS offers a small increase in the pool of “management ready” talent. But the MS degree does not serve as a strong management filter. Since the nursing MS is targeted primarily at providing talent for the various nursing specialties, this is not an unexpected result.

However, nursing management is itself a specialty. Earlier studies (Staff Nursing Paradox and The Nurse Management Staircase) have shown that it demands a unique perspective. That perspective carries with it skills that are not widely shared. The exercise of these skills (or absence of them) effects such important areas as nurse retention, quality, efficiency and effectiveness. This is not a minor matter.

Simply attaching more standard “management” courses to the nursing curriculum is unlikely to have any effect in adding to the nurse management pool. Adding familiar course content focused on techniques, processes or organizational theory is unlikely to have an effect.

One reason is that the problem is not technical knowledge, it is in management perspective. Trying to address hospital level problems with the detailed orientation of a staff nurse is predestined to failure. Equally, trying to deal with the mechanics of a ward using the expansive hospital level thinking is likely to create a degree of very visible chaos. It does not matter how well the techniques used to apply these misaligned perspectives are executed.

Leadership training is also unlikely to remedy the condition identified here. The managerial perspective revealed by these nursing studies is not confined to leadership. It applies how problems are defined, the meaning of terms (e.g., “fast” means different things to different styles) and the “right” way to address an issue. All of these things and more are precedent to leadership. They define the direction that leadership will take. Adding skills on how to execute that direction will do nothing to address the fundamental issue of what that direction should be.

This research blog indicates that the dearth of management talent in nursing is going to persist. Nursing schools are unlikely to fill the gap. It is doubtful that students better aligned with a management perspective could be attracted in any appreciable numbers. A program to show nurses how to prepare themselves could help (see Migration Strategy below) but its effects in appreciably increasing the management talent pool will take many years to realize. Medical institutions will probably have to rely on themselves to grow the talent that they need.


THE MIGRATION STRATEGY
The interests of hospitals are probably best served by helping existing nurses who want to enter management to realize their aspirations. Standard management programs can teach them techniques and processes. What is needed is a method of aligning their information processing perspective with that of management. This does not happen automatically.

Unlike psychological states, “I Opt” information processing profiles can be changed. However, change cannot be imposed. This is because change is not confined to work. It affects an entire life and a personal commitment is needed to effect that kind of change. It is also not fast. Profile shifts typically take at least 18 months. A nursing management program aimed at aligning profiles will be neither inexpensive nor fast. But it can be done so that produces positive, cost reducing returns to the hospital along the way.

The basic idea is to provide the nurse candidate with specific tools to offset the vulnerabilities inherent in whatever profile that she holds. Then structure an environment so that she can use the tool repeatedly. As it is used, performance is improved. Another process then takes hold to yield lasting benefit to all involved. That process is that success breeds success.

The tool is merely a temporary aid. As it is used a nurse becomes increasingly familiar with the behavioral option it promotes. In practicing she is actually practicing the use of an alternative strategic style(s). With success the behavior becomes embedded in her repertoire of automatic responses—her strategic profile. Effectively, her profile is migrating from one state into another. This new state is preparing her to assume managerial responsibilities.

The migration strategy is a measured approach. There is no sudden shift in overall behavior. The nurse gets to work the new approach into her life pattern—at work, home and other venues in which she participates. Co-workers get the opportunity to adjust their expectations. The pressure on the nurse candidate to maintain past behavior patterns is reduced. The hospital gets steadily improving management performance.

Migration strategy process is simple. (1) Identify specific behavioral vulnerabilities using “I Opt” technology (2) design methods to offset them one at a time (3) practice (4) Once command is gained, return to item #1 for another vulnerability and restart the process. Since each nurse has a unique profile, the migration strategy is tailored to the specific needs of each nurse. The results can reasonably be expected to be more powerful than any “one size fits all” solution.

Space limitations prevent a fuller specification of the Migration Strategy here. An “I Opt” Engineering research blog Addendum is available for those interested in more detail


SUMMARY
This research has demonstrated that traditional and second career nursing MS programs are equivalent in their ability to produce managerial talent. Their common level exceeds that available from the general nursing staff but only by a small amount. Advanced nursing education does not appear to be geared to fill the nursing management gap.

The study also shows that the nursing Master’s program also falls far short of the results posted by other disciplines and areas. These other areas produce twice as many “management ready” graduates than does nursing. Evidence shows that this is not the result of the demands of nursing management. It is due to the nature of the nurses themselves.

This study traced the nurse management shortfall to the wide dispersion of “I Opt” profiles among nurses. This is likely that this is due to the nursing MS degree serving primarily as a tool for entering nursing specialty areas rather than as a vehicle for promotion to managerial ranks. This means that it is unlikely that traditional management development programs will address the issue identified. The issue lies at the very way the average nurse perceives the world, not how they go about executing a course though it.

Finally, an outline of a Migration Strategy for developing a managerial perspective was offered. It proposes a staged, systematic migration that will equip nurses to handle the kind of issues encountered at the various management levels. The process is outlined in this research blog and more fully specified in its Addendum.

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.

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.

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.

The Pastor as a Leader

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

INTRODUCTION
A leader’s position determines their information needs. A supervisor in charge of a specific process works with a short-range horizon and much detail (input). Well-defined processes convert raw information into usable form. The desired outcome is usually explicit (output).

A CEO has a long-run horizon with few details (input). The processes are undefined and vague. The outcome is a judgment that requires balancing often-competing factors (output). Different positions favor different approaches. But helping the transition between levels goes far beyond just learning new competencies. It involves changing world views.

Information is the only vehicle we have to understand the world. The different information flows at the different levels create different understandings. There is situational variation. But there will also be commonalities. In other words, there will be variation around a central theme. The point of central tendency and the degree of variation give us something to study.

The suitability of a strategy determines how well a job can be done. If you pay attention to detail, your long-range vision will be compromised. Details compound geometrically with time and will exhaust the capacity of any mind. If you do not pay attention to detail, you cannot be precise. You will not have the needed data. It is a trade-off. “I Opt” technology translates this common sense observation into a framework of assessment. This gives us a way to conduct the study.

This Research Blog uses “I Opt” technology to evaluate 40 Pastors from 10 Protestant Churches. Data from 160 CEOs, 703 VPs, 3574 managers and 653 supervisor are used as comparison points. The goal is to identify opportunities to improve the leadership performance of pastors.


SHORT-RANGE PREFERENCES
When people encounter situations requiring a decision they usually use a preferred strategic style. “I Opt” defines Strategic Styles as particular combinations of input/process/output elements. You can learn more at www.iopt.com and/or www.oeinstitute.org. You can also click the Styles and Patterns video on the right for a simple explanation.

Pastors are people. They are not exempt from the need to make an initial choice. Table 1 compares the pastor’s median commitment to particular strategies with other executives in the “I Opt” database. The yellow boxes show the initial approach most likely to be used.

Table 1
"I Opt" Strategic Style Commitment
Median Percent of Maximum Possible Commitment

Pastors appear to fit into the strategic style approach used at higher management levels. Pastors are equally likely to use the RI and HA strategies. The RI focuses on creating new options. The HA focuses on analysis and assessment. This posture seems to match common experience of a pastor as a thoughtful idea generator. It rings true.

Not only are the initial approaches compatible with the pastor’s position in the hierarchy, but their other strategic styles also fit in. Chart 1 shows a stair step relation in strategic style commitment at the various levels.

Chart 1
"I Opt" Strategic Style Commitment by Organization Level

Four distinct categories representing five different organizational levels are moving in a lock step. This kind of pattern is no accident. There is a cause driving the pattern. That cause is the information processing demands of each organizational level. In other words, the duties of a position cause people to favor a particular strategic style. They not only favor it in work, they favor it in life. It can come to define their persona in the eyes of others.

A question might arise whether pastors are a distinct category or whether they are merely a part of an existing one. Table 2 answers this question.

Table 2
STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE IN STYLE DISTRIBUTIONS

The first row of Table 2 shows that VPs and Managers handle information in totally different ways. They are truly distinct. They seek different kinds of information, process it differently and target different outcomes. There is no doubt but that VPs and Managers “see” different worlds.

Pastors have a foot in both camps. They differ from VPs in that they give more emphasis to analysis (HA). They differ from Managers in putting less stress on proven, well-understood methods (LP). It is reasonable to consider pastors a distinct category. In other words, pastors are a unique breed.

There are spiritual and secular consequences to the pastor’s choice of initial strategy. Spiritually, their choice is well considered. Spiritual choices tend to be long-run (e.g., salvation) and have intellectual resolution (i.e., what to do). Both analysis (HA) and idea generation (RI) are thought based strategies focused on the longer-term future. They fit with the spiritual mission.

The pastor’s strategy choice may be less than ideal for their secular responsibilities (the church, finances, and administration). This area tends to be shorter-range and responds to intervention (i.e., action). Pastors, as a group, will likely be slow to respond to secular challenges. Difficulties can compound during these delays. This is a point of exposure arising from the pastor’s preferred strategic style approach. A strategy that works well in one dimension may not work as well in another.

Secular and spiritual duties of the pastor are entwined. The church must be maintained as an efficient, functioning entity if the pastor’s spiritual mission is to be fully realized. Paradoxically, the long run HA and RI styles of the pastors can short-circuit actions needed for the secular viability of the church.

Pastoral leadership programs would do well to recognize the consequences of the pastor’s choice in initial strategy. They can give pastors tools to help them make better judgments on these initial decision approaches. It will not always be analysis and ideas.

Pastors have substantial capacity in both the RS (instant action) and LP (disciplined action) styles. Merely sensitizing pastors to this exposure may be enough to yield a gain for both the pastor and the church. Giving them tools for quickly assessing new situations can further improve outcomes. There is opportunity here.

LONG-RANGE PREFERENCES
Strategic Styles are the strategies a person uses to settle issues. If their favored style fails or if added decisions are needed to resolve an issue, people move to their next most favored strategy. The combinations of primary and secondary strategies are called Strategic Patterns.

Strategic Patterns have a precise and mathematical definition. However, for purposes of this research blog is perhaps best to typify them in terms of the maxim likely to be seen in behavior.

Changer:---------“I got an idea, let’s try it”
Conservator:---“Let’s do it once and do it right”
Perfector:-------“Great idea, let’s think it through”
Performer:-----“Let’s get it done! We’ll do it right if we can and anyway if we have to”

Strategic Patterns (i.e., long-term) tend to follow the same systematic progression as shown in Strategic Styles (i.e., short-term). In other words, the pastor’s long-term strategic pattern fits into a stair step hierarchy as neatly as does the short-term strategic style. This is shown in Chart 2.

Chart 2
"I Opt" Strategic Pattern Commitment by Organization Level

Pastors seem to fit best with higher level executives (CEO and VP). Like them, pastors favor a Changer stance (“Great idea! Let’s try it!). Managers and Supervisors lean toward a Conservator posture (“Do it once, do it right!). These longer-term stances are more easily seen in Table 3.

Table 3
"I Opt" STRATEGIC PATTERN COMMITMENT BY RANK
Median Percent of Maximum Possible Commitment

A sharp-eyed reader will notice an anomaly in the otherwise orderly progression. The pastor’s strength in the Performer pattern (far right on Table 3) falls short of all other organizational levels. This is more clearly seen in Chart 3.

Chart 3
"I Opt" PERFORMER PATTERN COMMITMENT

The Performer strategic pattern results confirm the pastor as a unique category. The “Let’s get it done! We’ll do it right if we can and anyway if we have to” stance is ill suited to both the pastor’s secular and spiritual responsibilities. For a pastor, a low commitment to this pattern is the right posture.

Overall, the pastor’s long run decision stance seems to fit well into the leadership hierarchy. Standard leadership development tools are likely to be as effective as they are in the purely secular realm. However, there is a little secret embedded in the statistics.


THE LITTLE SECRET
This analysis used medians. This is the mid-point of a distribution. It is unaffected by people who hold extreme positions. Had we used averages a different aspect of the distribution of pastors would have become visible. Chart 4 shows this condition graphically.

Chart 4
"I Opt" PROFILE FOR PASTORS
(n =40)

There is clustering of pastors in the Conservator Pattern quadrant. A cluster is a bunching of people who tend to view the world through the same color glasses. They will tend to accept the same kind of variables as relevant, process them in roughly equivalent ways and seek the same character of outcomes. In other words, they can form a natural coalition.

The pastor cluster favors disciplined thought (HA) and disciplined action (LP) as a way of conducting life. They are detail sensitive. They tend to be thorough in processing information. They want to be right every time and seek certainty in the outcome. They see obstacles vividly and seek to avoid them.

In contrast, a majority of other pastors see opportunity more vividly than obstacles. They are more dispersed. They will try to realize the opportunity they see in different ways. However, there is commonality. They value new ideas. They are more willing to focus on central aspects of issues rather than details. They are willing to sacrifice certainty for the promise of large gains.

Clustering seems to be more pronounced among pastors than it is in other management categories. Charting the sample variance, an unbiased measure of dispersion in a group, makes this visible. For purposes of this research blog it is enough to say that the higher the sample variance, the more different are members of a group from each other. Chart 5 shows the results of this test.

Chart 5
SAMPLE VARIANCE OF STRATEGIC PATTERNS

The pastor’s Changer and Conservator categories stand out. This confirms that the pastor category is composed of two distinct subgroups that carry the same title. In other words, there is not one kind of pastor but two very different ones.

The “little secret” has implications for leadership. Leadership development programs drawn from the business community will miss the mark. These programs see leadership training in terms of continuum and have built their courses that way. In other words, they did not have clusters to worry about, so they did not build them in.

Adopting these business tools without modification is likely to short-change pastors. Focusing on opportunity oriented pastors automatically disenfranchises those that are obstacle oriented. The same applies in reverse. Focusing on obstacles will be of little value to a pastor whose world centers on creating opportunities. Neither category is “right” or “wrong.” Both obstacles and opportunities exist in the real world. Leadership training must address both of these legitimate stances.

One place to start leadership training for pastors is to introduce them to “I Opt” technology. Pastors in both subcategories are smart people. Showing them the biases inherent in their information-processing postures is often enough to produce a gain. A recognized bias can be offset. An invisible one cannot.

Training can also be adjusted. For example, “vision” is currently seen as a quality of leadership. This is the ability to envision and articulate an end state without knowing exactly how it will be realized. Vision is a natural quality of the Changer Pattern. It makes no sense at all to a Conservator. For them, it is the equivalent of a childhood wish.

Leadership training can be adjusted to accommodate these situations. For example, exercises can be developed to show the Conservator “how” to create a vision. Alternatively, they can be shown how to link a series of shorter-term goals into a system that resembles a long-term vision.

The point to be made is that standard programs do not have to be abandoned. They just need to be adjusted. They need to recognize that pastors are a unique breed with unique needs. Recognizing this gives us an opportunity to improve church leadership in both the secular and spiritual realms. It is an effort worth making.