Cohort 2001: Team Analyses

Paired sample t-analyses were performed for each of the ten teams on the SPGR Humres.

These results are presented in Table 11.9.

These indicate that only one team, Team 01AC, had a significant positive almost moderate development on the Synergy score from (M = 6.64, SD = 1.38) to [M = 7.37, SD = 1.72, r = .34, t(48)= -2.852, p < .006, d= .47] as a result of the RNoNA leadership development program. Four teams; Team 01BG, 01GG, 01JK, and 01ST, showed no development and thus no increase in Synergy or Energy. Team 01QL had a significant development on

Synergy, but it also had a significant increase on Withdrawal behavior, resulting in no development in available Energy for doing work. Four teams had a negative development;

Team 01TU, 01PP, 01TV, and 01QK.

Table 11.9

Cohort 2001: 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.

Figure 11.2 shows the field diagram for Team 01AC, with an overall positive development, and Team 01QK, which had a negative development.

Team 01AC Team 01QK

Figure 11.2 The Developement of Team 01AC and Team 01QK

The difference on these two teams’ Synergy scores was significant, although moderate. This was confirmed by an independent t-test. Team 01AC scored (M = 7.37, SD = 1.72) compared to Team 01QK [M = 5.91, SD = 2.23, t(111) = 3.600, p < .001, d = .68].

A thorough analysis of those teams that either had none or a negative development revealed an interesting pattern that could be illustrated with Team 01QL. This team had no significant development throughout the leadership development program. The field diagrams in Figure 12.3, shows that one cadet, Cadet F, dominated the team.

a)Pre measure b) Team sailing c) February

d) After Winter e) Post

Figure 11.3 Team 01QL’s SPGR Field Diagrams Throughout the Leadership Development Program

This cadet was the main contributor to the available Energy within the team (M = 7.56, SD = .85) compared with the team [M = 5.01, SD = 2.97, t(47)= 4.543, p > .001, d = 1.33]. The NEO PI-R results also revealed that this cadet scored high on the facet N2, Angry Hostility,

T = 60 with a d = 1.23, while the team scored 48.14 (SD = 9.21). At the same time, Cadet F was dominant and forceful, which was indicated by the E3, Assertiveness, score, T = 64 with a d = 1.57, and the team score was 51.57, SD = 5.03. This cadet’s behavior contributed to hampering the team’s performance and to the leadership development process within the team. One reason for this was a lack of maturity and the ability to “get along,” which was indicated by Cadet F’s low score on the Agreeableness domain, T = 38. Here the team’s score is T = 48.29, SD = 6.24, d = 1.35. Such a personality profile, with a high influence on Social Interaction tends to create a climate that fosters selfish behavior, where cooperation is not a central part of the leadership development process, and the overall result as seen is no development within the team.

Figure 11.4 shows this cadet’s 12-vector self-rating and peer ratings. This figure illustrates a lack of self-understanding, adjustment, and role-taking ability. This cadet lacked the necessary social capital to create a leadership climate, which, unfortunately, would be needed for either 3^rd GW or 4^th GW. At the same time this cadet was allowed to dominate this team throughout the entire leadership development program, and the RCI analyses on the SPGR 12-vector showed that the cadet’s only change was in becoming significantly more assertive, according to other team-members. The RCI NEO PI-R showed a significant development on Conscientiousness (T = 55).

Self-rating Peer-rating

Figure 11.4 The SPGR 12-Vector Diagrams for the Dominant Cadet in Team 01QL

The SPGR and the NEO PI-R data indicate that this was not an isolated case: The SPGR analysis showed that there was at least one dominant cadet in eight out of the ten teams. The only exceptions were Teams 01BG and 01TV.

Even in Team 01AC, which had positive development, there were dominant cadets. In fact, this team had three dominant cadets who partly dominated the team throughout the year.

Figure 11.5 illustrates the field diagram of this team at the post measure, after exercise

“Telemakos.”

Figure 11.5 Team 01Ac’s SPGR Field Diagram After Exercise “Telemakos”

The dominant cadets were A, D, and G. Even with these members, the team had a positive development because the team was not inhibited by these dominant cadets’ behavior. The dominant cadets had a decrease in their Synergetic behavior from M = 6.99 to M = 6.75, while the remaining team members increased their synergetic behavior from M = 6.36 to M

= 7.83. An analysis of the two groups after “Telemakos” comparing the dominant cadets’

scores (M = 6.75, SD = 1.81) to the team-members’ [M = 7.83, SD= 1.51, t(47)= -2.280, p <

.023, d = .67] illustrates this positive development.

Team 01TV’s field diagram and the team’s average 12-vector diagram are shown in Figure 11.6. This team had no dominant cadets, but the 12-vector profile reveals that the teams’

overall leadership behavior was limited and restricted. In particular, this team had a decrease in Synergy. A paired sample t-test of the SPGR 12-vector for this team revealed that this was

because of a moderate reduction in Empathy, showing interest in others, listening to and understanding their needs.

Figure 11.6 Team 01TV SPGR Field Diagram and Average Leadership Behavior

Empathy was reduced from (M = 7.80, SD = 1.56) to [M = 6.58, SD = 1.91, r = .42, t(63)=

4.477, p < .001, d = .60]. The RCI analyses revealed that five out of eight team-members had a significant negative development on Empathy. This was the largest change within the team. Another significant change was a decreased focus on Loyalty towards accomplishing tasks, which might seem like a paradox because the team’s leadership behavior became more Task Oriented—efficient, analytical and rational. However, this, together with stronger focus on Assertiveness and Criticism, indicates an orientation mostly concerned with “getting ahead,” which explains this lack of leadership development and role-taking ability.

Those teams that showed a negative development seemed to follow the same pattern concerning social interaction: They all had a significant increase in Task Orientation, Criticism, Assertiveness, Resignation, and Self-sacrificing and also a decrease in Empathy.

These teams were not able to establish the harmony and trust necessary to cope with an environment where they faced new challenges. Because the necessary climate for success was not established, the internal entropy, diS, increased due to the external demands created by the tasks given, deS. As a result, the teams’ performances were inhibited.

The positive development in Energy reported on those teams that also had a negative development requires an explanation because it gives a misleading picture. The answer can be found by analyzing the third SPGR dimension, Influence versus Passivity. Prior research

has shown that one dominant person is enough to change the work environment and inhibit team performance (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Stewart & Barrick, 2004; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). According to SPGR theory, a large variance on the Influence versus Passivity dimension will make development harder, especially if the dominant cadet scores significantly higher on Energy than the remaining cadets of the team. Team 01ST, see Figure 11.7, which also illustrates how this social interaction might work.

a)Pre measure b) Team saling c) February

d) Winter exercise e) Post measure (After “Telemakos”)

Figure 11.7 Team 01ST SPGR Field Diagram Throughout the Leadership Development Program

These field diagrams illustrate how the various team members acted as noncooperative centers of gravity throughout the leadership development program. This can be seen by studying the cadets’ average positions in the field diagrams, together with the scatter. There is obviously no clear direction—no Schwerpunkt—for the development process. Throughout the year, this team was dominated by two cadets, B and C. Their scores on NEO PI-R showed that they were more emotionally unstable than the remaining team: Their

Neuroticism T- score was 54 (SD = 2.83) while the team score was 45.67 (SD = 7.34, d = 1.50) and the difference was especially large on N2, Angry Hostility (M = 62.00, SD = 7.07), compared with the team [M = 45.33, SD = 7.82, t(6)= 4.064, p < .007, d = 3.32]. Because of their low score on Agreeableness (M = 36.50, SD = .71) compared with the team [M = 50.50, SD = 6.47, t(6)= 5.330, p < .003, d = 4.35], they most likely expressed frustration and bitterness toward the team-members. This was probably done in a forceful, dominant, and almost abusive way as suggested by their high score on E3, Assertiveness (M = 62.00, SD = 2.82) compared with the team [M = 50.67, SD = 7.19, p < .040⁵¹, d = 2.07]. Based on this, one would not expect to see any development because there was no climate that would make such a complex endeavor possible.