PART VIII. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS…
11. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE COHORTS
11.2 C OHORT 2001
11.2.1 The SPGR Results
Table 11.2 shows the average paired sample t-test of Cohort 2001 SPGR Humres results.
These results show that there was no increase in the cohort’s maturity level, indicating no
development of synergetic behavior. There was a significant negative increase of Withdrawal behavior. The lack of development is also confirmed by the fact that the overall Energy available for doing work did not increase. At the same time, both the Control and Opposition functions increased. Unfortunately, this result suggests that the cadets’ abilities to play the interaction and isolation game did not increase as a result of RNoNA leadership development program.
Table 11.2
Cohort 2001: Pre and Post Measures SPGR Humres - Others Rating Pre measure Post Measure
SPGR Functions M/SD M/SD r t(72) Sig. d Synergy 6.31
(1.20) 6.40
(1.50) .56 -.720 .474 Control 3.28
(1.20) 3.75
(1.55) .64 -3.313 .001 .13 Nurture 5.17
(.92) 5.15
(1.14) .52 .158 .875 Opposition 1.07
(.70) 1.71
(.91) .54 -6.879 .001 .40 Dependence 5.68
(.88) 5.53
(1.05) .58 1.414 .162 Withdrawal .73
(.72) 1.00
(.88) .63 -3.253 .002 .13
Energy1 5.58
(1.70) 5.40
(1.80) .65 1.018 .312
1 Energy was calculated by computing the energy available (Synergy with Withdrawal subtracted) within the team.
Figure 11.1 illustrates the average development of the whole cohort measured by team members’ ratings in the field diagram, together with the average the SPGR 12-vector profile.
Figure 11.1 The Developement of Cohort 2001 in the SPGR Field Diagram and the Cohort’s Average Leadership Behavior - Others Rating
The increase of the Control function is clearly illustrated in this figure. This becomes more obvious in Table 11.3, which shows the cohort’s development on each vector. The results in Table 11.3 reveal a more complex picture than in Table 11.2, e.g., that there is a decrease in Empathy while there is an increase in Engagement.
Table 11.3
Cohort 2001: SPGR 12-Vector Pre and Post Measures - Others Rating
SPGR Vectors Pre Measure Post Measure
M/SD M/SD r t(72) Sig. d C1: Task orientation 2.87
(1.38) 4.40
(1.48) .64 -9.645 .001 .96
S1: Engagement 6.17
(1.24) 6.55
(1.37) .54 -2.635 .010 .30
The most striking result is that the climate for leadership development worsened throughout the year. There was less room for Empathy—to listen to and show interest in others with a focus on understanding them, which is a necessary condition for development. Instead there was more Criticism—self-centered, provocative, and unruly behavior, together with Assertiveness, which describes self-sufficient, tough, and utterly competitive behaviors. The focus on Task orientation increased: They were trying to be more efficient, analytical and rational. The result of this was an increase in Withdrawal behavior—Resignation and Self-sacrificing. The calculated RCI results presented in Table 11.4 confirm this development. It is worrying that 34% had a significant reduction in their empathic behavior, while at the
same time 36% of the cadets became more critical and self-centered. Such a development in organizational climate will, of course, hamper creativity and lead to an increase in Withdrawal behavior. Although there was a large increase in Task-oriented behavior, 43%
had a significant development, it appears that this behavior was focused on getting ahead by oneself and not on developing a climate for leadership development.
Table 11.4
Cohort 2001: Individual-Level Change for the SPGR 12-Vector - Others Rating
SPGR Vectors Decrease (%) Stayed the same (%) Increase (%) χ2 (2, N = 73)
S2: Empathy 34 59 7 309.8***
N1: Caring 1 93 6 3.0
D2: Acceptance 4 92 4 1.6
N2: Creativity 12 85 3 29.0***
O1: Criticism 1 63 36 328.5***
W1: Resignation 3 82 15 47.4***
W2: Self-sacrificing 3 77 20 97.7***
O2: Assertiveness 1 76 23 129.5***
C2: Ruling 10 85 6 18.1***
D1: Loyalty 8 88 4 10:7**
C1: Task orientation 1 56 43 478.4***
S1: Engagement 4 90 6 3.5
Note. N =73. Number of cadets for decrease, increase, and staying the same were based on the reliable change index (i.e., change greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96 is considered a reliable change). The chi-square tests whether the observed distribution of changers and nonchangers would differ from the expected distribution if changes were random (e.g., 2.5% each decreases and increase and 95%
remain the same). Significance levels indicated as: *p <.05, **p <.01, and ***p < .001.
The result is a climate that did not foster maturity because the cadets as a group were not able to balance “getting ahead” and “getting along.” The 12-vector figure also reveals an unbalanced relationship between the basic functions, Control and Nurture. According to the SPGR theory, the Nurture function will be dominant at the lower maturity levels, Reservation and Team Spirit. A paired-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the balance between these two functions. There was a statistically significant imbalance between Control (M = 3.75, SD = 1.55) and Nurture [M = 5.15, SD= 1.36, t(72) = 6.323, p < .001, d = 1.49].
The ESstatistics indicates that this is a large imbalance towards Nurture. This together with the lack of increase of Synergy and a large increase in self-centered and provocative behavior, Criticism, indicates that the cohort’s overall maturity level was Reservation. This will be discussed in further detail below.
Table 11.5 presents the pre- and post-measures on the cadets’ self-ratings on the SPGR 12-vector. This result indicates a similar development on Empathy, Criticism, Assertiveness, and Task orientation, but the differences are much smaller.
Table 11.5
Cohort 2001: Individual-Level Change for the SPGR 12-Vector - Self Rating
SPGR Vectors Pre Measure Post Measure
M/SD M/SD r t(72) Sig. d
C1: Task orientation 3.70
(2.01) 4.97
(2.39) .54 -5.111 .001 .57
S1: Engagement 7.05
(1.69) 6.68
(1.96) .16 .315 .754
This is clearly seen by looking at the RCI results presented in Table 11.6, where percentages of “increasesers” and “decreasers” are significant in the same direction, but smaller. When we look at the Withdrawal behavior, represented with Resignation and Self-sacrificing, there was a large difference in perception. The paired t-sample test hides the significant results when it comes to Self-sacrificing, where there was an 11% increase and an 11% decrease.
This also indicates a gap between their self and their reputation.
It is also worth noticing the difference on Engagement, where others see a minor development: They were not able to notice it themselves, which is indicated by the fact that the cohort as a whole considered themselves to stay the same.
Table 11.6
Cohort 2001: Individual-Level Change for the SPGR 12-Vector - Self Rating
SPGR Vectors Decrease (%) Stayed the same (%) Increase (%) χ2 (2, N = 73)
S2: Empathy 16 80 4 59.3***
N1: Caring 3 92 5 2.7
D2: Acceptance 11 81 7 27.7***
N2: Creativity 10 88 3 15.1***
O1: Criticism 8 64 28 197.8***
W1: Resignation 5 90 5 5.4
W2: Self-sacrificing 11 78 11 44.0***
O2: Assertiveness 1 85 14 37.8***
C2: Ruling 4 93 4 1.6
D1: Loyalty 7 89 4 6.6*
C1: Task orientation 1 86 13 29.2***
S1: Engagement 0 100 0
Note. N = 73. Number of cadets for decrease, increase, and staying the same were based on the reliable change index (i.e., change greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96 is considered a reliable change). The chi-square tests whether the observed distribution of changers and nonchangers would differ from the expected distribution if changes were random (e.g., 2.5% each decreases and increase and 95% remain the same). Significance levels indicated as: *p <.05, **p <.01, and ***p < .001.