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.

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.

Split Style: A Two Edged Sword

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


INTRODUCTION
This research blog is intended for scholars and advanced practitioners of “I Opt” technology. It delves deeply into the split style pattern, an analytical concept unique to “I Opt.” It offers hard data evidence as well as interpretive analysis. People who have a more casual interest in split styles are encouraged to view the summary video on the iopt.com website or on YouTube. It is more accessible than the evidence-based research shown here.


WHAT IS A SPLIT STYLE?
Information controls behavioral options. You cannot be precise if you do not have detail. You cannot envision far distant futures if all you have is detail. Information determines possible behaviors. This is not a speculation. It is a certainty.

A split style is a name given to a particular strategic profile that favors two diametrically different information processing strategies. In other words, they differ on both the input and output dimension. Since information determines behavior, this choice causes behavioral sequences that appear to be contradictory. In one situation, the split style may choose a cautious option. The very next situation may be virtually identical but the individual elects to act suddenly with out forethought.

An outsider viewing the behavior generated by this combination over time would likely conclude that the person chooses to behave in an inconsistent fashion. In other words, the assumption is that the individual evaluated the situation in the same manner yet choose a opposite course. The natural outcome of this assumption is that the evaluation mechanism being used is faulty.

From an information processing perspective, there is no fault or deficiency. The person just chose to pay attention to different aspects of similar situations. Graphically, a split style means that the primary and secondary style lying at opposite poles on the standard “I Opt” diagram. Graphic 1 shows that this can happened on either of the two primary axes.

Graphic 1

EXAMPLES OF SPLIT STYLE PROFILES

(Actual profiles from Database)

It is useful to explain what is happening. The Hypothetical Analyzer and Reactive Stimulator combination is termed the HA/RS split. A person using this strategy will at times adopt the HA’s cautious, detail-oriented posture focused on producing a plan, assessment or other similar thought-based outcome. At other times they may elect the RS’ fast response based on minimal information and expedient methods. If seen in sequence over a period of time these alternating postures could suggest a contradictory behavioral pattern.

The Relational Innovator and Logical Processor (RI/LP) split produces different set of behaviors. Here the person may choose the cautious, detail-oriented posture focused on the precise execution of the LP. This action posture alternates with an RI output of ideas or new options spontaneously generated from any available information. Again, over time the only visible pattern is contradictory behavior.

People base their predictions on patterns of past behavior. The opposing postures of a split style profile eliminate commonalities needed for pattern generation. An observer would only see inconsistent behavior suddenly “pop up” without a clear reason. This creates a degree of behavioral uncertainty. It is inherent in the strategy.


HOW OFTEN DO SPLIT STYLES OCCUR?
Split style profiles are not common. Graphic 2 shows that number of split styles encountered in the population is about 12% (based on a sample of 42, 952).

Graphic 2

DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE PROFILES

Complicating matters still further is the 12% of split styles are not homogeneous. They are about equally divided between HA/RS and RI/LP. This makes prediction even more difficult. People are unlikely to see the HA/RS and RI/LP as two different expressions of the same phenomena. An observer is likely only witness one or the other types of splits and thus see half of the 12% - or about 6% of the population - displaying contradictory behavior patterns.

People maintaining split style profiles will tend to be seen as outliers—people who lie out of the norm of everyday experience. This makes it likely that the contradictory behavior pattern will be treated as anomaly—just a peculiarity that can be ignored.


WHAT DETERMINES THE STYLE CHOICE?
People using a split style strategy usually develop some kind of “switch.” A switch is just a situational signal. We have seen switches based on the level of risk, the location (home or work), psychological state, organizational levels and time frames. Anything that makes sense to the individual can be used as a “switch.”

The switch does not have to be conscious. All of us would find it difficult to articulate why we chose to use this style or that to address the thousands of decisions we make every day. We choose a particular approach because it is “right.” What is “right” is determined by our profile. We do not have to think about our choices. Neither does the person using a split style.

While the choice of a particular style response may be unarticulated, the same may not be true of the profile as a whole. Once given the lens of “I Opt” we have found that many (but not all) people using split styles recognize their tendency to use radically different approaches. In other words, there is usually no “push back” resulting from the “I Opt” diagnosis.

On an individual level there is nothing to “fix.” Whatever the switch is, it works most of the time for the person using it. If it did not, it would be discarded or modified over time. A split style strategy may be inconsistent but it can be effective for the person using it.


DOES ONE STYLE TYPICALLY DOMINATE IN A SPLIT?
Graphic 3 shows that the thought based styles of HA and RI tend to be mildly favored in split style patterns.

Graphic 3
DOMINANT STYLES IN SPLIT STYLE PATTERNS

Theory offers no reason for the slight dominance of the thought-based strategies of HA and RI. However, the dominant style is the one that is used most often. It can be speculated that thought based strategies are more frequently called upon in a modern, complex society. However, this is just speculation. A definitive answer would require research that is beyond the scope of this blog.


HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE INDIVIDUAL?
A split style is not an issue for the individual holding it. People acquire style preferences as a response to the situations that they typically confront. If the situations require alternating between two diametrically opposed stances, the split style profile is optimal. In other words, split styles can be functional for the individual.

An example may help. One of the people with a split style profile that we encountered was an executive. He headed a function responsible for the distribution of large amounts of money. It turned out that he was using RI/LP split style profile. We wondered why.

We discovered that the choice was based on two roles he fulfilled. When managing the distribution of funds the disciplined, rigorous and detail-oriented Logical Processor (LP) style was being used. But when interacting with higher management levels, the idea generating Relational Innovator (RI) style was most advantageous. Since these two activities occupied a major portion of his time, they became embedded as his general approach.

“I Opt” styles are not confined to work. A split style went home with this executive when he left the office. It may not have been optimal in that context. But it does not have to be. It is enough that it be adequate for addressing the issues being confronted in that context. In overall terms, the gain in a work environment could be enough to offset any loss in other life situations.

A split style profile is used by a person because it works. It is a rational choice. It carries no penalty for the individual using it. It is a functionally effective method of addressing situations actually encountered in the conduct of life.


HOW DO SPLIT STYLES AFFECT GROUPS?
Split style difficulties emerge only at a group level. They are a sociological emergent. The source of the difficulty lies in the capricious unpredictability of behavior. Group members do not know about the unusual profile (the split style) being used or about the switch that controls it. The negative impact of this condition appears in the area of coordination.

A major factor in group efficiency and effectiveness is the ability of members to anticipate each other. If team members can predict each others behavior they can act on their expectation. They do not have to wait to be told what others will do. This predictive ability creates the widely recognized phenomena of a “smoothly functioning” team. A split style compromises this ability.

This happens because groups typically function as chains of activities. John does this and hands it off to Mary. Mary does that and passes it on to Peter. In this chain, the member’s anticipate the actions of those on whom they depend. Since they are prepared they can act more quickly and efficiently when the event they are expecting occurs.

But, if John were a split style, Mary’s predictions will be wrong more often than they would be if John used a typical “I Opt” profile. In other words, there is a greater chance of predictive error. When that happens, Mary may have to retrace some of steps she has already taken. Her efficiency is lost.

In some cases these bad predictions can compromise Mary’s ability to give Peter what he needs to complete the chain. When this occurs, the inefficiency is magnified. Peter’s prediction of Mary’s likely behavior could be compromised by John’s unpredictability.

The level of inefficiency varies with the degree of unpredictability. However, the fact that there will be a level of inefficiency is inherent. But a loss of efficiency does not mean that a split style automatically compromises effectiveness—the purpose of the group effort.

Internal efficiency losses can be offset by external advantages. For example, in our earlier example of the RI/LP executive the split style was functional. The executive’s LP was well adapted to handling the cash disbursement activity of the group he headed. His RI helped insure that senior management remained satisfied that the group was alert to new options. The executive’s split style approach supported group effectiveness.

Split style profiles are like any other. They are neither good nor bad. Their value depends on the balance of inefficiency generated versus the gain from the broadened range of issues addressed. This balance is situational. There is no general formula for gauging a particular split style’s net value.


HOW OFTEN DO SPLIT STYLES HAPPEN IN TEAMS?
Teams are just assemblages of people. The average team size is about 8 people. Split styles are about 12% of the population. On a pure chance basis the joint probability that an 8-person team will not have a member with a split style is 36% ((1 - .12)^8). The remaining 64% of teams would contain at least 1 split. Graphic 4 shows that this is exactly what happens in actual practice. In other words, the real world behaves just as mathematics says it should.

Graphic 4
DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE IN TEAMS

A split style profile is displayed in behavior. It is not an hidden quality. Yet Graphic 4 shows that there is no bias—either positive or negative—in the selection of split styles as team members. They are included on teams exactly as pure chance would dictate. Yet we know that there is a coordination inefficiency built in. That means that there must be something that offsets this loss.

The logic of this position is that if split styles were dysfunctional teams would have learned to exclude them as members. In that case, we would have expected to find fewer of them than chance would dictate. That is not what we find. It is reasonable to infer that split styles must bring at least as much positive value to team effectiveness as they cost in inefficiency.


WHY DON’T WE SEE MORE INEFFICIENCY?
Over half of the teams in the real world include at least 1 split style. So why don’t we see more frustration based on coordination difficulty? The answer is that not all split styles are equal. They come in degrees.

The strength of a split style has multiple determinants. The degree of difference between the two most used styles, the divergence with the closest peripheral style and the absolute level of style strengths are among the items affecting strength. However, for the purpose of this research blog the difference between the secondary style and the closest peripheral style can be taken as a reasonable index of strength.

Using this index, a mild split style can be defined as response set where a shift in 1 question on the “I Opt” Survey would resolve the split style into a more typical profile. There are 24 questions on the survey. Therefore 1 out of 24 would yield a 4.2% differential (1/24=.0417). In other words, over a long series of transactions we would expect a mild split style to be apparent to others only about 4% of the time. Clearly, this frequency is not enough to generate visible levels of inefficiency. What there is could easily be attributed to random chance.

Graphic 5 shows that almost half (46.6%) of split style population falls into this mild category. Coordination based inefficiency will be present. But the low frequency makes its effect almost invisible.

Graphic 5
DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE STRENGTH

Medium level splits require 2 or 3 response changes on the “I Opt” Survey to resolve the split style divergence. Using the same logic as applied to mild levels, this would mean that a medium level split would be visible roughly 10% of the time (2.5 average divergence/24=10.4%). This is likely to be noticeable but not highly dysfunctional.

The high category ranges from a minimum of 4 response changes (4/24≈17%) to the maximum actually recorded in the database of 9 changes (9/24≈38%). At these levels the split style will be noticeable and likely to materially affect team operation. However, this high level of split style strength occurs in only about 24% of the split style population. This means it will only be seen in 2.9% of the population (12% total splits x 23.9% strong ≈2.9%).

Split style inefficiency is visible to anyone who wants to look for it. However, noticeable levels occur only infrequently in a typical person’s experience. When it does rise to dysfunctional levels the tendency is to attribute the cause to some personal psychological quality of the individual involved. Without the “I Opt” lens with which to definitively isolate the cause, a psychological deficiency is likely to be the colloquial fallback. Unfortunately, this fallback speculation will do nothing to resolve the situation.


DOES THE KIND OF SPLIT MATTER?
Both the HA/RS and the RI/LP split have the same effect. They compromise the ability of others to accurately anticipate future behavior. In addition, Graphic 6 shows that both are equally likely to occur at all strength levels. This means that there is no basis for differential effects based on the type of split style being used.

Graphic 6

DISTRIBUTION OF SPLIT STYLE STRENGTH BY TYPE OF SPLIT

DOES THE POSITION ON THE TEAM MATTER?
The most powerful negative effects occur with those who are immediately impacted by coordination missteps. The structure of the group determines how many people will be effected. The more people immediately impacted the greater the potential exposure.

Graphic 7a shows a clustering situation. A split style’s (shown in yellow circle) unexpected behavior can effect multiple people. This magnifies the potential consequences to the group. Graphic 7b illustrates an isolated condition. Here split style effects are minimized by the position at the end of a chain of activities. There are simply fewer channels through which negative effects can flow.

Graphic 7
ILLUSTRATION OF STRUCTURAL EFFECTS

Structural position is not the only factor determining the effect of a split style on a team. Frequency is another determinant. The exposure is obvious. The more frequently the person with a split style is referenced, the greater the probability of a coordination misstep.

Finally, bandwidth matters. Bandwidth is the number of different functional channels (i.e., different areas of activity) that the split style can influence. The greater the number of channels, the greater the number of different ways a coordination misstep can influence group effectiveness. Again this is an obvious exposure.

Structure, frequency and bandwidth are important for organizational advisers to recognize. They can be changed to mitigate split style effects. This gives the adviser the option of changing the situation rather than the person to mitigate split style effects. It is an option worth keeping in mind.


DOES A SPLIT STYLE AFFECT PROMOTION?
Graphic 8 shows that the proportion of split styles is roughly stable throughout the range of organizational ranks. Spit styles account for 12% of the population and also occupy about 12% of the positions at each level of the hierarchy. This suggests that a split style profile is no structural impediment to advancement. In any particular instance the cost imposed by coordination missteps can be outweighed by the gains offered by broadened scope. But in general, they do not.

Graphic 8
SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION BY ORGANIZATIONAL RANK

The presence of split styles at all organizational ranks also offers further evidence of the existence of some kind of benefit flowing with split styles. If the inherent coordination penalty was not being offset by some kind of advantage, promotional potential would be compromised. It is not.

It might be noted that the Vice President level seems to have a bit higher split style representation. The difference is significant but without substantial consequence. Graphic 9 shows that a “mild” split styles make up a larger proportion of the Vice President category. In other words, while there are more VPs using split style patterns, they tend to be the weaker variety. In terms of operational impact, the split style effects at all levels are probably about equal.

Graphic 9
“MILD” SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION

DOES SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION DIFFER BY FUNCTION?
Functions impose constraints on the people who staff them. For example, accountants must follow FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) directives to have their work accepted. This kind of external control limits the value that can be contributed by the broadened split style range. Thus it is to be expected that different functions will vary in their hospitality to split styles. Table 1 shows that this is exactly the case at non-supervisory levels.

Table 1
SPLIT STYLE DISTRIBUTION BY FUNCTION

The functions appear to divide into three distinct groups. Functions with low levels of split style representation are clustered in activities that limit discretionary behavioral choices. These activities are constrained by some form of standard or supervisory control. This reduces the value of the split style’s broadened perspective while the coordination cost penalty remains. The net result is that these are not favorable split style environments.

The functions with high levels of split styles appear to share a large discretionary component. With the possible exception of engineers, participants in these functions tend to work outside of large groups. The value of broadened scope is increased while the coordination penalty is lowered. This means that the net value of the split style strategy is enhanced. The effect is that these become favorable environments for the split style profile.

This real world experience supports the position that people using the split style strategy generate both increased costs (i.e., coordination) and value (i.e., broadened scope). Functionally, they prosper in situations where discretionary action is highest (i.e., value) and coordination (i.e., cost) is the lowest. It makes theoretical as well as operational sense.


CAN SPLIT STYLE PERFORMANCE BE IMPROVED?
The value side of the split style equation is situational. It depends on the activity being pursued. It would probably be wise for people committed to a split style strategy to try to avoid functions that limit discretion and that are thickly entwined with coordination demands. While this is an option, in most organizational interventions this will not be a practical alternative. The functional and structural positions are usually fixed. But there is the other side of the equation, the cost.

The organizational cost of a split style centers on its coordination effect. Others cannot predict future behavior. The remedy is obvious. Become transparent. In other words, remove the need for others to predict. The person using a split style only needs to tell others of their intention. This will instantly improve organizational performance and increase the value of the person using the split style strategy. It is an easy win-win option.


SUMMARY
The split style profile is a rational choice for the individual employing it. On a theoretical basis it is the equal of any other profile. But on an organizational basis it is a two edged sword.

One edge of the sword is the increased cost. This arises because any split style has an inherent unpredictability component. This can make organizational missteps inevitable unless personal offsetting action (i.e., transparency) is adopted.

The other edge of the sword is increased value. This is situational. It does not occur everywhere and at all times. It occurs where the situation allows for and benefits from a broadened scope of action (e.g., see Table 1: Distribution by Function).

This research has shown that these cost and value components tend to offset each other in real world conditions. Split styles show up in about the same frequency as would be expected by chance.

The obvious prescription for addressing split style issues in Organizational Development is to maximize the value and minimize the cost. The value edge of the sword can be adjusted by seeking positions that benefit from the wide range that the spit style offers. The cost edge of the sword can be minimized or eliminated by adopting a transparent posture. This is not a difficult change. Plus there is a positive motive. It will improve person’s worth to the organization. This is likely to translate into increased rewards over both the short and long-term.