How chief executives learn and what behaviour factors ... - Emerald

General conclusions of the researchThe general descriptions are based on a composite profile of all respondents but at a factorlevel there are some characteristic so strongly marked that we can confidently baseinferences on them.If the composite profile was an individual, the individual would be described as a strongwilled, forceful person with great determination, highly competitive, aggressive with aninquisitive streak and not afraid to take chances. The individual would also be confident,optimistic, independent with a stubborn streak, opinionated and unsystematic. They alsosee themselves as inspiring, convincing winners.The combined groups have profiles that predict that their motivation to learn is based onthree characteristics. They are more interested in learning about ‘‘What’’ to do, rather than‘‘How’’; they look for direct benefits to themselves and their careers; they are interested inareas or activities that will flatter their image. Trainers who have looked at the results wereconvinced that this backed up their own experience of working with chief executives. Forexample, they found it hard to persuade chief executives to attend skill-based trainingprogrammes but less difficult for events that dealt with strategic questions. It also explainedthe somewhat reluctant attendance at any mandatory legislative type training and thewillingness to sometimes attend prestige events.The interest in ‘‘what’’ rather than ‘‘how’’ stems from the extrovert nature of the majority ofchief executives in the study (see Table I).The difference between the group and the general population is well marked but thedifference between females in the sample and the general population is even more marked.The group of female chief executives from the CEF was big enough in numbers against thetotal of female chief executives in the whole of the public service to support the idea that theircharacteristics were representative. In that case, it is clear that, whilst some introvertedmales may make it to the top, it seems that the boardroom door is still a mighty obstacle formore introverted females.The general characteristics are reinforced by factors on vision, paperwork and detail. Thechief executives scored highly on vision both as a natural behaviour and an adapted one,but low on interest in paperwork and attention to detail. From a learning viewpoint it is clearthat this group will have a preference for options rather than opinions, hence ‘‘what’’questions will stimulate debate, but ‘‘how’’ questions are more likely to lead to disagreementand defending of positions. Discussion will be more fruitful, from the chief executive’sviewpoint, if it takes the form of asking for facts, evidence, and options rather than views,opinions and recommendations.The combined style of the group in its natural version is strongly dominant indicates not onlyan interest in results, but also an interest in personal results. They see themselves aswinners; hence information is filtered against its usefulness in creating a winning situation.Their profile shows ambition to succeed and a willingness to pay the price of success interms of hard work. Humbleness is not a characteristic that shows in their preferences andtheir natural style is also low on compliance. On the factor analysis they have adapted aTable I Extroversion v. introversionGroup Extroversion (%) Introversion (%)General population 46 54Sample 66 34Chief Executive Forum (CEF) 64 36CEF male 58 42CEF female 83 17Institute of Directors (IoD) 67 33IoD male 69 31All female 77 23PAGE 140j j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 37 NO. 3 2005

‘‘ The DISC Profile learning instrument helps people assess howmuch they use each dimension of behaviour in a particularsituation. ’’higher degree of decisiveness and results orientation than they would naturally suggestingthat this is a learned behaviour. The low compliance levels combined with factor analysis thatindicates low levels of following procedures may result in others viewing some of theirdecision making as inconsistent. For example, a meeting may have decided on a particularcourse of action to solve a problem. However, if the chief executive receives new informationor sees a better course, there may be a change of plans, without necessarily communicatingthis to all concerned in the meeting.The need for good image and novelty stems from those parts of the profile that indicate adesire for favourable working conditions and the need for recognition. There are, of course,many different ways that these goals can be achieved. In the public service sector it iscodified through regulations on office space, furnishings, travel and accommodation. Theprivate sector also has its distinguishing features not only in salary but also in various otherconditions and perks. However, these considerations can have a pronounced effect on thelearning environment. The attractiveness of a learning event will be partially determined bythe provider, the venue, the cost, and other delegates attending. This combined with thelikelihood that the event will help achieve results will influence the decision on whether toattend or how much time to devote. Unless the evidence that the event will produce a result isoverwhelming, it is likely that status will be the determining factor. Again trainers have littledifficult empathising with the results from their own experience although the individualdefinition of some of the factors may vary. For example, on an anecdotal basis, status may bebased on the cost of an event. Too low a price may be as big a deterrent as too high. Statusmay also be concerned with other attendees but perversely in some cases, too many peopleof similar status may be as big a deterrent as too few. Status may be a factor of the venue orlocation. Some will lean towards location away from home or country as defining status,others will consider the ease of returning to work.General personality typesThe DISC profile divides respondent’s preferred behaviours into natural and adaptedcategories. The natural category is the more basic response and the adapted style is howthey have responded to their environment. We tend for the most part to adapt behavioursthat are successful in our own terms. Some people show little or no difference in their naturaland adapted style, others may have a considerable difference. A large gap may indicatethat these people may feel some pressure using the adapted style, or that they will behavevery differently in different situations. In the research most of the participants had littlesignificant difference between their styles.DISC in its first order of description assigns a predominant quadrant to participants. In thelanguage of the profile people become ‘‘High Ds’’, ‘‘High Is’’, ‘‘High Ss’’, or ‘‘High Cs’’. Ourbehaviour is rarely so simply defined as we are capable of behaviours from all the quadrants. Inthe general population only 1.2 per cent display purely D behaviours, 1 per cent I behaviours,0.9 per cent S behaviours and only 0.03 per cent purely C behaviours.The participants in the survey showed a natural style that falls mostly in the D or Dominancequadrant. Their behaviour would be described with words like competitive, confrontational,direct, results-oriented, sense of urgency, and a change agent. For the behaviour that ismoving towards the I quadrant descriptive words would be process-oriented, quick tochange, independent and optimistic. The natural style of the majority of the respondents fellVOL. 37 NO. 3 2005 j j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 141

within that range. However, the adapted style showed some softening of the confrontationaldominance approach with more emphasis on trust, contact, working with people, verbalisingand projecting self-confidence. There is no data available for respondents as to howdominant their style may have been some years ago so it is not possible to show whether thisis a recent learning process or a longer term one. The general population data indicates thatthere is a falling in these characteristics and on an anecdotal basis there seems to be littledoubt that direct, authoritarian style are on the wane. Legislation in terms of equality, jobsecurity and human rights would tend to promote a more influencing persuading style asleaders realise that their ultimate authority comes from their followers.Given the level of confidence in the study there is still a significant difference between thepercentage of participants displaying high D behaviours in the male CEF group, the CEFfemale percentage of high I behaviour and the percentage of IoD males displaying high Sbehaviours compared to the general population (see Table II).One of the most interesting differences is the high score for the female group in the I quadrant.This would seem to contradict the traditional stereotype that says that women have to beharder and more aggressive than men to make it in a male dominated world. Their use of apredominantly influencing approach coupled with a low compliance may indicate that they aremore successful in getting around rules or are less concerned about them than men. It is alsoclear that introspective high compliant women have little chance of making it to the top.The percentage of high D behaviours in the male respondents is partly a reflection of somegeneral tendencies. Although S and C types predominate in the general population theytend not to be proportionally represented in managerial positions. There are several possibleexplanations for this. People with D and I behaviours tend to more interested in shaping theirenvironment and more openly ambitious. They are not slow to draw attention to theirachievements and may put themselves before the team. They also tend to be more articulatewhich comes across better in the traditional interview situation. These factors may help themrise more quickly than S or C types who depend on the quality of their work to speak for itself.These explanations are of course dependent on a level of competence and do not indicatethat the ability to articulate successes is the only factor in moving up the promotion ladder.Some of the difference in the CEF and IoD scores in the S quadrant may be explained by therelative ease of measuring success in financial terms in a commercial environment. Otherfactors including confidence may be involved and 61 per cent of respondents describedthemselves as most confident, 58 per cent were most competitive and 85 per cent describedthemselves as being most aggressive in handling challenges.In comparing the natural and adapted styles, the main lessons seem to be that CEOs havelearned that the lower compliance of their natural style needs to be modified.We may only speculate as to the reasons for this. It may be that the ultimate authority for whatis happening in an organisation demands more respect for rules and regulations. Someevidence points to the need to find ways around rules at a lower level, especially when thereis someone to protect or camouflage. It seems somewhat paradoxical that holding theultimate authority may reduce the room for exercising it freely.Table II Population comparisons of the four main behavioural typesBehavioural type D (%) I (%) S (%) C (%)General population 18 28 40 14Combined study 30 36 20 14Chief Executives Forum 30 34 26 10CEF male 33 25 29 13CEF female 24 59 17 0Institute of Directors 29 40 13 18IoD male 29 40 13 18All female 22 52 17 9PAGE 142j j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 37 NO. 3 2005

Other characteristicsAt the next level of grouping there were some differences between the IoD sample andthe CEF males. The biggest grouping was of behaviour that looks for respect and a goodimage but also likes to build on what has already been accomplished. There was a smallgroup of male CEF members who were closer to the traditional stereotype for publicservants. They displayed behaviours that preferred certainty to ambiguity, did not seekradical change, tended towards low risk and enjoyed accuracy and privacy. There wereno women who exhibited these characteristics. It may be that this group represented anolder generation but as there was no age data in the research we can only speculate. TheIoD group also seemed to have a higher tendency towards needing complete control,using assets to the fullest and more concern about finance and operations. This mayreflect the cultural differences between private and public sector but the female group ofCEF participants showed more tendencies towards this group than they did towards theirmale colleagues.At the lowest level of generalisation, 94 per cent of the sample perceived themselves asaggressive in their response to challenges and able to take action. This seems to be one ofthe distinguishing characteristics of chief executives; 81 per cent also perceived themselvesas decisive. The second biggest factor was their ability to inspire, which was supported by ahigh percentage who thought they were convincing. The other common perceptions were ofan adaptable confident leader 76 per cent, determination 74 per cent, competitive 72 percent calmness, open-minded and charming, all 72 per cent.The least perceived characteristics concerned popularity, vigour, self-control and trust.The most interesting question might be that if these characteristics are truly the importantfactors, can they be distinguished at an early stage of a career or can they be learned? Thecharacteristics can be tested at any stage but can they be learned? Many would argue thatat least some of the characteristics like competitiveness or confidence could be learned.There is little doubt that confidence can be built through the successful completion ofchallenging tasks. It may be that development programmes need to concentrate on this typeof activity rather than the simple accumulation of knowledge. Many respondents,responding to the structured interview, spoke of the importance of the largely informalmentoring that allowed them to experience success. They also spoke of the value of visitingsuccessful organisations as a means of learning.In questionnaires the most accurate information is often not what people see themselves as,but what they perceive themselves not to be. The group do not see themselves assoft-spoken, easily led, timid, animated, assertive, humble or obedient. They may seethemselves as charming but they do not see themselves as cheerful. Is it their personality notto be cheerful or is it the pressures of life at the top? Most of these correlate well with theirpositive descriptions except for the distinction between aggressive and assertivebehaviours. Either the group are not assertive, which seems unlikely, or they understandthe difference and are putting themselves firmly in the aggressive camp!All these characteristics were compared with some data for managers below the level ofchief executives and the distinguishing features from the general population were largelymirrored in the comparisons with managers. However, it was not possible to calculate thesize of the comparative population for managers, so no real significance can beattributed.‘‘ Many respondents, responding to the structured interview,spoke of the importance of the largely informal mentoring thatallowed them to experience success. ’’VOL. 37 NO. 3 2005 j j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 143

‘‘ Legislation in terms of equality, job security and human rightswould tend to promote a more influencing persuading style asleaders realise that their ultimate authority comes from theirfollowers. ’’Structured interviewsThe final part of the research used a structured interview to consider some of the methodsused by chief executives in their learning. On average they read or scan three professionalmagazines per month, spend four days training per year (90 per cent thought they nowspent more time training than they did at a lower level of management). As a group they donot read books on general management and less than half even read articles on generalmanagement. For those who have promoted the internet as the learning method of the futurethere will be disappointment that chief executives have not received this message; less than10 per cent of them use the internet for learning.Ninety per cent claimed to have been influenced by a formal or informal mentoring processbut only 10 per cent could remember a speaker who had significantly influenced theirdevelopment. They were however a little more positive on training programmes and 40 percent mentioned them as significant whilst the rest quoted particular life experiences as beingthe most important.In terms of personality traits, the most quoted traits in influencing success were, not doingthe ordinary thing, drive and determination.ImplicationsThere are many implications in the research for the way we approach development. If webelieve that the behaviours are inherent then our efforts should be concentrated inidentifying these at an early stage and promoting those who have them. If we believe theycan be learned then we need to change our approach to management development to givethem priority. We can argue that it is more important to equip people with a wide set ofthinking skills and a few core behaviours than to concentrate on knowledge and a list of corecompetences. In terms of methodology it would appear that the current trend towards morementoring and coaching is probably on the right track. The big difficulty for many providersis that the economics of the training business push us towards the traditional events and theindividual approach is more expensive for the customer and less profitable for theinstitutional provider.PAGE 144j j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 37 NO. 3 2005