CIP Model of Leadership: Exploring Sex-Based Differences & Methodological Approaches Crystal Smith, Edgardo Cigaran, Terri Shapiro, Kevin Nolan
INTRODUCTION The Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic (CIP) model, a cognitive leadership approach, focuses on individual differences in how leaders construct their understanding of a crisis through sensemaking, using three distinct leadership styles that are equally capable of achieving success (Mumford, 2006).
RESULTS
Prescriptive Mental Models ● Time frame orientation
● Locus of causation
● Type of experiences use
● Controllability of causation
Purpose of Study
● Nature of outcomes sought
● Use of emotions
The CIP model has traditionally used histometic data, the lack of opportunities for women to attain leadership positions in the past leaves a gap in literature regarding the unique ways in which female leaders may approach decision-making. Additionally the assumption of the CIP pathways being stable over time may not generalize to female leaders because societal pressures for how leaders should behave may prevent them from using a stable set of cognitive processes (Griffith & Medeiros, 2020). This study explored the most used pathway by male and female leaders and changes in the pathway used by either sex in an evaluative context due to gender expectations.
● Number of outcomes sought
● Targets of influence
● Focus on model construction
Leader A’s Response
Survey methods have the potential to be more inclusive of a diverse population of leaders but are used less frequently for measuring CIP pathways and consensus across existing surveys is lacking. This study examined the construct validity and alternative-forms reliability of recently developed survey methods, specifically an inventory survey measuring general tendency v. a scenario specific survey.
Research Questions ● RQ1: Can the resulting pathway determined by each survey instrument be interpreted meaningfully and in correspondence to the CIP model? ● RQ2: Does the CIP model restrict females to a singular pathway, if so which pathway? ● H1: The mutually exclusive nature of pathways will change under the evaluative condition for females more so than males, when compared to non-evaluative conditions.
METHODS Sample ● Mturk participants (n = 335) were USA residents over 18 years old and in a leadership role completed security measures to exclude AI respondents were conducted.
Inventory Survey
Scenario Survey
Opening statement: Greetings everyone! Change is on the horizon. I have a vision for Humanist Association (HA) future, it is not just an organization, it’s a family, a family united in carrying on the torch of success lit by the founders so long ago Message: We will face this challenge together; this is a vision that is attainable if we unite and work together for a better future for the organization and its staff. I am willing to take these risks due to my faith in each and every one of you! As CEO, I’ll expect each of you to give it your all for the greater good. I want my employees to realize their potential and how much they have to offer. Employees of HA, now is the time to stand together and unite around our common goal. Outcomes: We must address multiple goals including reshaping our image using new advertising strategies and exploring more cost-effective ways of recruiting volunteers. We must consider multiple possibilities and outcomes, each of which could set us on a brighter path away from hiding our mistakes, which have recently defined the status quo at HA. Key factors: Humanist Association (HA) has prospered and persevered due to the blood, sweat, and hard work of its loyal employees. This pivot will require taking risks. We must shake things up through mutual support, participation, and collaboration.
To what extent do you engage in…. ●
Use a future-oriented time-frame?
●
Use a present-oriented time-frame?
●
Use a past-oriented time-frame?
●
Discuss positive prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
●
Discuss negative prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
●
Blend both positive and negative prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
● RQ 1 we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on each measure to evaluate the underlying CIP pathways the inventory showed poor factor structure (X2 (1, N = 152) = 946, p < .001; TLI = .44, CFI = .49, RMSEA = .11) and the scenario measure had acceptable model fit indices (X2 (1, N = 152) = 264, p < .001; TLI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08) . This suggests that the scenario measure is more reliable in measuring the underlying pathways. Cronbach's alpha for each pathway in the scenario measure was Charismatic = .96, Ideological = .97, Pragmatic = .97 ● For RQ2 and H1, the study used a 2(gender) x 2(condition) x 3(pathway) complex design to examine leadership pathways. Results showed no main or interactive effects between subjects. There was a three-way interaction between condition, sex, leader pathway, F (2, 7.00) = 3.09, p < .05, accounting for 1% of the within-subject variance. Simple effects analysis indicated that under non-evaluative conditions, females (M = 3.92, SD = 1.01) identified with pragmatic leadership more than with ideological leadership (M = 2.79, SD = 1.17). Additionally our results suggest that females use a Pragmatic pathway to a larger extent than ideological pathway in a non-evaluative condition.
DISCUSSION: ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ● Contextual scenarios should be used to measure CIP pathways rather than self-reports of leadership behaviors based on its psychometric properties ● Females are most similar to the Pragmatic pathway and least similar to the Ideological pathway, according to the scenario survey method of measurement. This finding supports the assertion that stereotypes play against cognitive processes consistent with the ideological pathway. When females were evaluated, the pathway chosen was fairly distributed. ● Evaluation did not influence participant responses to which pathway they would use or are most similar to.
Limitations
Evaluative Condition
Non-Evaluative Condition
● Self-report was used to measure all constructs which threatens internal validity
● Participants received $1.25 and optional results of their survey.
● Possible sampling error using MTurk workers
● 152 participants were removed for failing attention checks or insufficient effort, and 3 for identifying as non-binary.
● Applied existing CIP methods to real world leaders using a convenience sample, assuming that our participants all use an underlying CIP leadership pathway
● 60% of the final sample identified as male, and 70% were white.
Future Directions
Procedure
● Understand the prescriptive mental models used by exceptional female leaders. By learning which CIP pathways successful females use, strategies to adjust their style based on performance expectations can be identified.
Upon qualifying, participants were randomly assigned to an evaluative or non-evaluative context, resulting in a 2 (context: evaluative, non-evaluative) x 2 (participant sex: male, female) between-subjects design. Participants completed two surveys in a counterbalanced order - one on a crisis with leader responses and the other on leadership behaviors. Reading comprehension checks were implemented. Participants also answered demographic questions. Results were summarized and optionally shared via CloudResearch.
● Use longitudinal methods to track CIP pathways across careers and confirm whether CIP pathways are stable across time or change.