Cohort 2002: Team Analyses

Because leadership development is based on the development of each team, an in-depth analysis of each team and the social interaction within each team was performed by conducting a paired sample t-test for each team’s Humres results, which are presented in Table 11.17.

Table 11.17

Cohort 2002: SPGR Humres Results on the Team Level

SYNERGY CONTROL NURTURE OPPOSITION DEPENDENCE WITHDRAWAL ENERGY Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Note: A paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the leadership development

program on the cadets’ SPGR Humres scores. Significant changes are indicated with: *p < .05, **p <

.01, and ***p < .001. N gives the number of ratings within each team. A team consists of 8 team members who rate themselves and each of the others, producing 64 ratings.

These results indicate that eight out of the ten teams had a significantly positive development, and only two teams, 02XY and 02UA, showed no development. A closer look at the pre-Energy scores for Teams 02XY and 02UA indicates overall high scores, M = 6.08,

and M = 5.64; only Team 02LT had a higher score. However, the post score reveals that Team 02UA scored lowest with M=5.80 and Team 02XY the second lowest with M = 6.13 indicating that these two teams had no significant development. The in-depth analyses of the SPGR 12-vector results indicated that Team 02XY had a significant development on Ruling behavior, from (M = 3.78, SD = 2.14) to [M = 4.84, SD = 2.48, r = .48, t(48) = -3.116, p <

.003, d = .62]. This implies a stronger focus on controlling, autocratic behavior where the main focus is on attention to rules and procedures.Because the Ruling behavior (M = 3.65, SD = 2.29) was stronger than Task-orientation [M = 4.84, SD = 2.48, t(48) = -4.239, p <

.001, d = 1.22], this hampered efficient, rational, and analytical behavior and instead resulted in controlling and pedantic behavior. The team’s different field diagrams throughout the year showed that one cadet, Cadet G, had an overly influential and dominant position within the team, as can be seen from Figure 11.10.

Figure 11.10 Team 02XY Post Field Diagram

An independent t-test revealed that the dominant cadet scored significantly higher on Ruling (M = 7.71, SD = 2.55) compared with the team-members [M = 4.36, SD = 2.27, t(47) = 2.979, p < .001, d = .86] and on Criticism ( M= 4.71, SD = .49) compared with the team [M

= 1.36, SD = .91, t(47) = 9.520, p < .001, d= 2.78]. Cadet G also scored lower on Empathy (M = 6.14, SD = 1.95) compared with the team [M = 7.64, SD = 1.81, t(47)= -2.014, p <

.050, d = .59]. An examination of Cadet G’s personality, measured with the NEO PI-R, indicated that this cadet was focused on “getting ahead,” with a T-score on Agreeableness of

42, which indicates a tendency to be egocentric, skeptical of others’ intentions and to be competitive rather than cooperative (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The team’s average score was T = 53 (SD = 7.4), and the difference between Cadet G and the team members was large, d = 1.25.

This situation was made worse because of Cadet G’s high N2, Angry Hostility, T = 62, while the average for the team was 39.67 (SD = 5.32, d = 2.79). The low Agreeableness score suggests that Cadet G tended to express anger towards the other team members, behavior made more likely because of that cadet’s high N6, Impulsiveness, T = 66, the team average was 48.17 (SD = 8.47, d = 1.92), and by the cadet’s low C6, Deliberation, T = 35, the team average was 55.67 (SD = 13.55, d = 1.74), and high E3, Assertiveness, T = 66, while the team average was 53 (SD = 8.83, d = 1.38). This paints a picture of a dominant, forceful cadet who was not able to control cravings and urges, who was hasty, and who often spoke or acted without considering the consequences.

Cadet G created a climate that became focused on critical, opposing, controlling, and autocratic behavior and one not able to show empathy and interest in others. This is not a climate that is supportive of leadership development. The team’s field diagram further showed that one cadet, Cadet A, had a negative influence score on the Z-dimension of -2.

This indicates a submissive leadership behavior with no initiative. This cadet showed this behavior throughout the year: -4, -1, -2, -2 and -2, indicating a lack of development. Cadet A’s personality indicated a person who is closed, the Openness domain T score was 38, suggesting a conventional and conservative outlook with little curiosity about either the inner or outer worlds (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Compared with the team, the difference, d = .78, is close to large (M = 48.67, SD = 16.55). This cadet also scored low on Conscientiousness, T = 42, indicating a lack of the purposeful, strong-willed, and determined behavior that is necessary to develop as a leader. Here the difference was large, d = 1.60 (M= 60, SD = 12.35), indicating a need for (a) special incentives to learning and development, (b) help in organizing own work, (c) reminders to keep on schedule, and (d) problems maintaining attention (Costa & McCrae, 1998). These are certainly not qualities desired in an officer in the 21^st century. It proved impossible to create a positive climate for leadership development in this team, most likely because of the dominant cadet’s behavior.

This resulted in a team operating at a low maturity level, showing a lack of adjustment and role-taking ability, and thus producing no leadership development.

Figure 11.11 shows the 12-vector profile of the dominant cadet, Cadet G, from both self rating and peers’ ratings. This illustrates a behavior that is concerned with “getting ahead,”

and, as the analysis showed, this cadet lacked the resources needed to contribute to a climate that could have made interaction and development possible.

Self-rating Peer-rating

Figure 11.11 Cadet G in Team 02XY SPGR 12-Vector Profiles

Figure 11.12 shows the similar 12-vector profile for the submissive cadet, Cadet A. These two profiles, self rating and peer rating, were nearly identical. Here the situation is the opposite of the dominant cadet’s. This is a cadet who will not take any initiative—the Z-dimension was -2—and who lacked the ability to take on and perform those roles that are concerned with the control function, Ruling and Task oriented behavior, which this cadet sorely needed. As can be seen from Figure 11.11, however, this role was occupied by the dominant cadet.

Self-rating Peer-rating

Figure 11.12 Cadet A in Team 02XY SPGR 12-Vector Profiles

From a leadership development perspective, it is worth noting that this pattern was established early in the leadership program. This is can be seen by studying Figure 11.13 that shows the team’s field diagram half way into the leadership development program.

Unfortunately, these issues were not resolved, and as a result, this team did not mature, and no real leadership development took place.

Figure 11.13 Team 02XY SPGR Field Diagram Half Way Through the Leadership Development Program

Team 02UA, which also had no developement, showed a similar pattern, although it may not be that obvious. Here, two cadets had a dominating and influential role within in the team, Cadets C and D.

Figure 11.14 Team 02UA SPGR Field Diagram - Post Measure

The scatter (white circles) indicates a polarization tendency among team members, resulting in negative energy within in the team (the circles close to opposition). An independent t-sample test revealed that these two cadets were significantly more concerned with Task-oriented behavior (M = 6.31, SD = 1.58) compared with their team [M = 3.88, SD = 1.95, t(62) = 4.517, p < .001, d = 1.14] and Ruling behavior (M = 6.25, SD = 2.21) compared with their team [M = 4.33, SD = 1.64, t(62) = 3.700, p < .001, d = .94]. They were less concerned with Caretaking (M = 6.75, SD = 1.73) compared with their team [M = 8.06, SD = 6.76, t(62)

= -2.868, p < .006, d = .73] and Empathy (M = 6.50, SD = 2.00) compared with their team [M = 8.00, SD = 1.54, t(62)= -3.120, p < .001, d = .79]. At the same time, these two cadets were significantly more assertive, than the remaining team members; (M = 6.00, SD = 2.19) compared with their team [M =4.44, SD = 2.15, t(62)= 2.504, p < .015, d = .64]. Figure 11.13 shows the self and peer ratings for Cadets C and D in the 12-vector space.

Cadet C’s self-rating Cadet C’s peer-rating

Cadet D’s self-rating Cadet D’s peer-rating

Figure 11.15 The SPGR 12-Vector Ratings of the Two Dominant Cadets in Team 02UA

The profiles of Cadet C also suggest that this cadet lacked the ability to perceive and understand the impact on those the cadet led. The profile of Cadet D indicates that this cadet was aware of this, but did not understand the negative impact of such leadership behavior.

The NEO PI-R data confirmed the SPGR pattern. These results of the two dominant cadets on the Agreeableness domain, T = 42, (SD = 4.24), were low compared to the general population, d = 1.46, while the average T-score of the remaining team-members was 49.00 (SD = 5.27, d = .88). They also scored higher on N2, Angry Hostility, T = 53 (SD = 2.83) compared with the team which scored 46.50 (SD = 7.89, d = 1.10), while the cohort scored as low as 43.65 (SD = 7.2, d = 1.71). These results suggest that these dominant cadets most likely would express their anger towards the other team members, resulting in a negative influence on the team climate and its social interaction pattern and role-taking ability. This was amplified by their lower scores on C6, Deliberation, T = 45.50 (SD = 4.95) compared with the team, which scored T = 54.67 (SD = 6.15, d = 1.65) and their relatively higher score on E3, Assertiveness, T= 62 (SD = 8.49) against the team score, which was T = 55.33 (SD = 6.41, d = .89). This team was dominated by two cadets who were forceful and expressed their opinions, even actions, without considering the consequences. At its best, they might be able to make snap decisions. Their low scores, however, on Openness, M = 38 (SD = 4.24) and high scores on Conscientiousness, M = 56.50 (SD = 9.12), indicate that they will not be able to make good decisions in situations, such as warfighting in the 21^st century, characterized by ambiguity, novelty and unexpected changes in tasks (LePine, et al., 2000).

They are diligent, methodical, and organized, and they abide by all the rules. But because they lack imagination, have a strong need for structure and closure, and prefer step-by-step instructions, they will have difficulties in situations that have no right answers (Costa &

McCrae, 1998).

The profiles presented in Figure 11.15 also indicate that these two cadets represent a challenge for a leadership development program, especially Cadet C, who showed a large difference between self understanding and the peer ratings. This pattern was already established half way through the leadership development program when there was still time to deal with it.

Several of the others teams that did show significantly positive development also had cadets who tended to influence and dominate their team. Within Team 02LK, Cadets A and E had

strong influences on the team throughout the year. As the field diagram in Figure 12.16 shows, it was Cadet E who had the strongest influence on the team showing a score of 6 on the Z-dimension. However, both of these cadets’ scores on Synergy were moderately lower than the rest of team’s (M=6.68, SD=1.72) compared with (M=7.20, SD=1.65, d = .31). A more thorough analyses revealed that these dominant cadets showed more Ruling behavior (M = 5.56, SD = 2.98) compared with their team members [M = 2.98, SD = 1.36, t(62)=

4.442, p < .001, d = 1.13] and they scored lower on Empathy (M = 6.06, SD = 2.18) compared with their team members [M = 7.79, SD = 1.87, t(62)= -3.078, p < .003, d = .78].

Figure 11.16 Team 02LK’s SPGR Field Diagram - Post Measure

The NEO PI-R results were once again consistent with SPGR pattern: The dominant cadets’

scores on Agreeableness were low, T = 40.50 (SD = 7.78), the team’s T score was 54.17 (SD

= 7.17), which was a large difference, d = 1.83. Their personalities also showed a higher N2, Angry Hostility, T = 53.50 (SD = 12.02) compared with the team (M = 39.67, SD = 7.23, d = 1.53). On Conscientiousness, which contains the previously mentioned facet C6, Deliberation, the pattern is slightly different. Here, the dominant cadets scored low, d = 1.18, T = 41.50 (SD = 4.95) while the team scored 53.67 (SD = 13.66). This is once again a negative result because conscientiousness is related to leader effectiveness (Hogan &

Holland, 2003; Judge, et al., 2002). The major difference between the dominant cadets and the remaining team-members, which most likely contributed to the team’s overall positive development, was that these two cadets were not as dominant and forceful as the previously mentioned dominant cadets in Teams 02XY and 02UA. On E3, Assertiveness, they scored M

= 59 (SD = 4.23), while the team scored M = 55 (SD = 10.07). This difference was moderate, d = .58, but these cadets did tend to be more dominant and forceful than the general population.

This indicates that it was the ability of the remaining team members to create a positive social climate that contributed to this team’s development. Although this team did show a positive development, there are some reasons for concern because four cadets; C, F, G, and H, scored negative on the Z-dimension. This indicates submissive behavior that lacks initiative, and also suggests that they were not eager to try out new leadership behaviors and expand their role repertoire. The team’s variance on the Z-dimension, M = 14.98, SD = 3.87, with a minimum of -8 to a maximum of 13 (a range of 21), indicates this. This large variation was most likely a result of the polarization caused by the two dominant cadets, and the negative fluctuation this causes hampers leadership development within the team, suggesting that variation on the Z-dimension might provide a significant indicator of effective leadership development.

Team 02BN also had a large variance on the Z-dimension, M = 27.80, SD = 5.27, with a minimum of -11 to a maximum of 10 (a range of 21). However, the field diagram in Figure 11.17 shows that this variation was driven by one team-member, Cadet F.

Figure 11.17 Team 02BN SPGR Field Diagram - Post Measure

The team did not have the one or two dominant cadets who hampered the team’s performance and the leadership development process, but rather Team 02BN offers a case where one cadet clearly lacked the ability to take on and perform leadership roles. The scatter diagram, however, shows that although Cadet F did cause negative fluctuations, this cadet did not have the influence to hamper the development of leadership within the team.

When Cadet F was deleted from the analysis, the variance on the Z-dimension was dramatically altered, M = 12.88, SD = 3.59, with a minimum of -1 to a maximum of 12 (a range of 13). A look at this cadet’s 12-vector profile in Figure 11.18 might indicate why this is so.

Self-rating Peer-rating

Figure 11.18 Cadet F in Team 02BN 12-Vector Profiles

Once again the data reveal that this pattern was established early in the leadership development program. This is illustrated by Cadet F’s score on the Z-dimension throughout the leadership development program; -2, -6, -5, -6, -2 and finally as shown -6. Also worth noting here was this cadet’s low score on NEO PI-R Openness domain, T = 42, while the team scored T = 55.43 (SD = 10.57). This difference was large, d = 1.31, and it is also lower than the population in general. A low score on Openness indicates lack of ability to adapt to change (George & Zhou, 2001). This might be a reason why this Cadet had no development during the year.

The last team that will be discussed is Team 02AS, see Figure 11.17. This team had two cadets who showed submissive behavior; Cadets C and G. The team also had one member, Cadet E, who exhibited dominant behavior throughout the year. The data revealed that this

cadet showed the same behavioral pattern as previously discussed: A significant stronger focus on Ruling behavior (M = 7.00, SD = 1.41) compared with the team [M = 4.20, SD = 1.88, t(62) = 4.450, p < .001, d = 1.13], and a lower focus on Empathy (M = 6.50, SD = 1.85) against [M = 7.91, SD = 1.46, t(62)= -2.479, p < .016, d = .63]. Cadet E also scored significantly higher on Assertiveness (M = 5.75, SD = 1.67) compared with the team-members [M = 3.66, SD = 1.65, t(62)= 3.338, p < .001, d = .85], which reinforced a negative climate for development that hampers leadership development. This is indicated by the lack of development of Synergy, see Table 11.17. Although the team showed an increase in Energy (M = 5.63, SD = 3.28) compared to [M = 6.26, SD = 1.52, r = .73 t(63)= -2.172, p <

.034, d = .20], the effect of that increase was low.

Figure 11.19 Team 02AS’s SPGR Field Diagram - Post Measure

The dominant cadet’s score on E3, Assertiveness, T = 70, was also high compared with the team members (M = 59.14, SD = 11.71, d = 1.00). The variance on the Z-dimension within the team was also large, M = 21.82, SD = 4.67, with a minimum of -11 to a maximum of 11 (a range of 22).

These results, particularly for Teams 02XY, 02UA, and 02AS, clearly indicate that one dominant cadet can hamper a team’s leadership development.