Strategic Information Provision

STRATEGIC INFORMATION PROVISIONAND EXPERIENTIAL VARIETY AS TOOLS

FOR DEVELOPING ADAPTIVELEADERSHIP SKILLS

Johnathan K. Nelson, Stephen J. Zaccaro, and Jeffrey L. HermanGeorge Mason University

The development of adaptability skills is critical for organizational success and survival,yet traditional training interventions are not sufficient to promote adaptive expertise. Inthis article, we summarize prior research on two training techniques that develop suchexpertise: experiential variety and strategic information provision in the form of in-structions, performance feedback, and cognitive/behavioral guidance. Prior integrativereviews have described how these strategies can promote adaptability by fostering skillsin cognitive frame-switching and flexibility. We extend these arguments in the presentarticle by reviewing prior research that supports the use of experiential variety andstrategic information provision as elements of an adaptability training strategy. Weexamine the use of these elements not only in formal training (which was the prime focusof prior reviews), but also in developmental work experiences and in self-development.Additionally, we include a more specific focus on developing cross-cultural adaptabilityskills through these training techniques.

Keywords: adaptive leadership, adaptability training, frame-changing skill

Adaptability has become increasingly important to leaders at all organizational levels as the natureof work grows in complexity, change, and ambiguity. Standard training practices have not kept pace,continuing to emphasize growth in “routine expertise” in performing typical tasks (Kimball &Holyoak, 2000; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). Although routine expertise benefits performanceon familiar tasks, it is not sufficient to help leaders perform novel or dynamic tasks (Smith et al.,

Johnathan K. Nelson, Stephen J. Zaccaro, and Jeffrey L. Herman, Department of Psychology, George MasonUniversity.

Johnathan K. Nelson is now a Senior Research Associate at Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.(PDRI). Stephen J. Zaccaro is a Professor, Department of Psychology, George Mason University. Jeffrey L.Herman is now a Senior Consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton.

The development of the ideas expressed in this paper comes from research supported by the United StatesArmy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (W74V8H-05-K-0004). A summary of thisresearch was provided as part of a research report to the U.S. Army Research Institute, which has the rights todistribute such reports publicly for government purposes. The views expressed in this paper are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of the Army or those of any otherorganization.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephen J. Zaccaro, Department of Psychology,MSN 3F5, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: [email protected]

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2010 American Psychological Association2010, Vol. 62, No. 2, 131–142 1065-9293/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019989

131

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

1997). To help leaders meet the growing demand for adaptive performance, training and develop-ment activities need to foster “adaptive expertise” (Kimball & Holyoak, 2000; Kozlowski et al.,2001; Smith et al., 1997). Adaptive expertise is fundamentally different from routine expertise, asit reflects a deeper understanding of a content domain that enables individuals to change theirresponses in alignment with unanticipated, unfamiliar, and uncertain environmental information(Kozlowski, 1998). If leadership training and development is to keep pace with organizationaldemands, new approaches must emphasize skill in adaptation as a critical outcome, and use designstrategies that specifically target growth in adaptive expertise.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss two strategies for developing leader adaptability andadaptive expertise, experiential variety and strategic information provision in the form of instruc-tions, performance feedback, and cognitive/behavioral guidance. Ely, Zaccaro, and Conjar (2009)described how these two strategies as used in formal training settings can promote adaptability byimproving flexibility and cognitive frame-switching skills. We extend their work by (a) reviewingprior research that supports the use of these design strategies in training, and (b) examining theimpact of these design strategies in other learning settings, including developmental work experi-ences and self-development activities. Additionally, we focus on how these strategies may lead tocross-cultural adaptability, bringing a broader perspective into how and why experiential variety andstrategic information provision drive adaptability (cf. Zaccaro, Wood, & Herman, 2006).

Adaptability and Frame-Changing Skill

For this paper, we adopt the definition of adaptability proposed by Banks, Bader, Fleming,Zaccaro, and Barber (2001) as a “functional change (cognitive, behavioral, and/or affective) inresponse to actual or correctly anticipated alterations in environmental contingencies” (p. 4). Thisdefinition is similar to many others, as described in related reviews (e.g., Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce,& Kendall, 2006; Ely et al., 2009; Mueller-Hanson, Nelson, & Swartout, 2009). We refer the readerto Ely et al. (2009) and Zaccaro, Banks, Kiechel-Koles, Kemp, and Bader (2009) for extendedtreatments of this definition; however, we wish to draw attention to two key points. First, adapt-ability reflects a fundamental shift in the types of performance strategies used in response tochanging conditions in the environment (Ely et al., 2009; Zaccaro et al., 2009). These shifts inperformance strategies are critical. If training and development interventions are expected to lead toadaptive behavior, they must improve an individual’s readiness and flexibility to make theseperformance strategy shifts effectively.

Second, several definitions of adaptability argue that individuals can anticipate change (ratherthan merely react to it), and alter their performance strategies, either to shape the nature of changingconditions, or to maximize their position in post-change conditions (Ely et al., 2009; Mueller-Hanson et al., 2009). Zaccaro et al. (2009; see also Burke et al., 2006; Ely et al., 2009) outlined theproblem-solving processes that contribute to proactive adaptation. Three of these processes—scanning dynamic environments, diagnosing the meaning of pending or actual changing events, andplanning responses to change—focus on how individuals frame the problems posed by changingenvironments and how they derive solutions through these frames. This cognitive process of framingsolutions from different perspectives is central to adaptive expertise; in other words, experts inadaptation “recognize changes in task priorities and the need to modify strategies and actions”(Kozlowski, 1998, p. 119).

Cognitive frame changing, the capacity to switch among various perspectives or frames ofreference, is a core skill in adaptive problem solving (Ely et al., 2009; DeYoung, Flanders, &Peterson, 2008). Adaptive experts are better able to recognize the need to alter priorities andstrategies through altering or switching the frames of reference they use at different points inadaptive problem solving processes (Ely et al., 2009; Kozlowski, 1998; Zaccaro, 2009). We suggestthat such experts may more readily refocus attention on different cues and cue combinations whenscanning their environments in order to detect how existing patterns are changing. Changing framesconsistently, and reconsidering the appropriateness of current problem-solving strategies, leads tochanges in cognitive frames themselves, helping experts better diagnose the meaning of subsequent

132 NELSON, ZACCARO, AND HERMAN

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

changes (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). By altering the frames they use to solve problems that havechanged in fundamental ways, adaptive experts also avoid the problem of “functional fixedness”(Duncker, 1926) on an obsolete strategy.

Concepts closely related to cognitive frame changing have been discussed in a variety ofliteratures (e.g., “insight”; DeYoung et al., 2008). From an interpersonal viewpoint, perspectivetaking, a skill that facilitates understanding how another individual sees the world, is important foreffective negotiations and interpersonal relationships (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005; Neale &Bazerman, 1983). From an intercultural viewpoint, cross-cultural code-switching is “the act ofpurposefully modifying one’s behavior in an interaction in a foreign setting in order to accommodatedifferent cultural norms for appropriate behavior” (Molinsky, 2007, p. 624). Hong, Morris, Chiu,and Benet-Martinez (2000) used the term cultural frame-switching to describe how multiculturalindividuals interpret environmental stimuli and identify culturally appropriate responses by chang-ing the cultural frames they employ.

In the context of organization science, Zyphur (2009) argued that switching methodologicalmindsets while conducting research can bring novel insights into the research process. He assertedthat such cognitive switching involves considering multiple means of data analysis and researchdesign. Adopting different mindsets is expected to help researchers think about problems in newways that allow for the reframing of problems contributing to creative insight. Specifically, Zyphurargued that “divergent thinking should occur as a function of switching mindsets, so it follows thatas the logics underlying analytical mindsets become more different from one another, thinking canbecome increasingly divergent, and any questions prompted can become more fundamental innature” (p. 678).

While frame changing skill is an essential element of adaptive expertise (Ely et al., 2009), theprocess of “mindset switching” is often unlikely to occur because of its inherent difficulty (Zyphur,2009). Zyphur (2009) argued that such frame-changing requires individuals to “recognize theirenacted mindsets and then consciously evaluate and alter them—no easy task” (p. 685). Not only isframe-changing an activity that requires a high level of conscious effort, but evaluating theappropriateness of a particular frame can be challenging. For instance, in interpersonal interactions,an individual must correctly identify the other person’s perspective in order to actually improve theinteraction. Changing to the wrong frame, and taking the wrong perspective, can certainly have anundesired impact on the interaction.

Training and development interventions that are intended to build adaptive expertise shouldfoster frame-changing skills to help individuals perform this difficult task that lies at the heart ofadaptive expertise (Ely et al., 2009; Kozlowski et al., 2001). In the next section, we examineexperiential variety and strategic information provision as elements of adaptability training thatpromote the development of frame changing skill.

Training Design Strategies Fostering Adaptive Expertise

Ely et al. (2009) reviewed strategies for developing cognitive frame-changing skills, including:experiential variety, self-regulation, adaptive guidance, and error management training. In thispaper, we build on their work by reviewing empirical research on the influences of experientialvariety and different forms of information provision on adaptive performance. We also examine howthese training strategies work not only in formal training interventions, but in developmental workassignments and self-development activities as well.

Experiential Variety

Experiential variety involves the use of stimuli or practice scenarios in training that vary ineither surface or structural details that in turn require changes to performance strategies (Smith etal., 1997; Kozlowski et al., 2001). Surface variation refers to variability in problem details thattypically require trainees to use the same basic solution strategy, but to make minor adjustments inits implementation (Gick & Holyoak, 1987). For example, when training military soldiers on tactics

133FLEXIBLE LEADERSHIP SPECIAL ISSUE: DEVELOPING ADAPTABILITY SKILLS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

in clearing a building of potential enemy fighters, practice exercises can alter different aspects of thebuilding, or number and types of enemy inside, but the fundamental performance strategy remainsthe same. Similarly, customer service training may entail presenting different types of customers,each with somewhat different problems, but that require the same general customer approach.Surface variation in practice scenarios more likely grows routine expertise, helping individuals totransfer what is learned to similar contexts (Smith et al., 1997).

In contrast, structural variation involves varying the details of a problem domain so much thattrainees need to fundamentally change their existing performance strategy (Gick & Holyoak, 1987).While surface variation preserves the same solution principle across different problems, structuralvariation requires trainees to change the basic principle that governs how they are to solve aparticular problem (Smith et al., 1997). In our military training scenario, structural variation wouldoccur if during the exercise, a large crowd appears at the building clearing site, asking the soldiersfor humanitarian assistance to an injured child. This change would require trainees to alter theiroriginal building-clearing strategy to one that involves crowd control and caregiving. Structuralvariation may inhibit transfer of what is learned in training to a particular problem domain, butwould foster adaptive expertise by helping individuals to understand how different solutions addressdifferent types of problems (Ely et al., 2009; Smith et al., 1997; Zaccaro, 2009). For example, in themilitary training example, when the crowd appears, trainees would need to move from a confron-tational and peace-making solution frame to a more collaborative, peace-keeping, and humanitariansolution frame. As trainees experience a series of such structurally distinct problems, they shouldbecome more adept at engaging in the inherently difficult task of frame-changing.

Zaccaro and his colleagues conducted a series of studies that examined the influence ofstructural experiential variety on adaptive performance (see summaries in Zaccaro, 2009; Zaccaroet al., 2009). Kemp, Wood, Cracraft, Horn, and Zaccaro (2004) used a military simulation to varykey problem elements such as terrain, target defenses and locations, and enemy numbers. Thesevariations required significant shifts in how team members achieved mission success. They observedthat adaptive performance was marginally better for those teams receiving greater variety during thesimulation, when they also received feedback on the kinds of member interactions that werenecessary for success. Heinen et al. (2007) found stronger support for the influence of experientialvariety in a city planning simulation, in which trainees solved a series of practice problemsrepresenting either surface or structural variation. Those trained with structural variety acrossscenarios were more likely to make adaptive decisions in a subsequent performance trial.

Zaccaro, Nelson, Gulick, and DiRosa (2010) directly tested the link between experiential varietyand cognitive frame-changing processes. They used the same city planning simulation and manip-ulation of experiential variety from Heinen et al. (2007), and also manipulated the provision ofinformation and guidance. Trainees were asked to “think aloud” during training, and to describe howthey had thought about problems after completing the performance trial; experimenters coded theseresponses for cognitive frame-changing processes. They found that adaptive decision making wasmore likely under conditions of both high experiential variety and strategic information provision.Participants who were trained with both high structural variation in scenarios and detailed infor-mation provision were also more likely to (a) recognize that a different performance strategy wasneeded in the performance round than in previous rounds, (b) approach the problem in a differentway, and (c) alter their ways of thinking about the problem during the performance trial. Zaccaro,Gulick et al. (2010) used teams rather than individuals and replicated the findings of Zaccaro, Nelsonet al. (2010), observing similar effects of experiential variety and strategic information provision onteam adaptation.

Experiential variety in developmental work assignments. Although these studies focus onthe impact of experiential variety in formal training settings in which practice scenarios can becarefully structured, adaptability skills can also be developed through other modes of learning, suchas developmental work assignments (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004). Developmental assignments arethose work activities that provide individuals with novel and different learning experiences(McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994). Because these experiences challenge existingskill sets of participants and foster growth in different directions (Ohlott, 2004), developmental


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

assignments are well-suited for developing adaptability skills (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004; Zaccaro etal., 2006).

Banks (2006) examined the effects of developmental assignments on social competencies linkedto adaptability in a sample of business managers. She also examined the role of managers’metacognitive skills (i.e., the ability to think about how and what one is thinking; Flavell, 1979) andcognitive complexity (i.e., the ability to mentally represent many distinct elements and theirinterrelationships; Streufert & Swezey, 1986) as moderators of these effects. She found thatdevelopmental assignments were associated with higher social competencies, but only for managershigh in the aforementioned individual difference dimensions. She also found that social competen-cies were associated with higher ratings of adaptive performance by managers’ supervisors, but onlyin organizations in which innovation was perceived as valued by managers. This study providesevidence for the importance of developmental assignments for adaptability skills, albeit with severalmoderators of their effects.

Horn (2008) took this research further by (a) examining the explicit link between developmentalassignments and frame-changing processes, and (b) exploring the role of experiential variety in suchassignments. He measured several characteristics of developmental assignments completed by asample of business managers, including the absolute number of such assignments, their degree ofnovelty to the managers, and qualitative differences among different assignments. The last measurereflected the degree of experiential variety among developmental work assignments. Managers alsoprovided assessments of the degree to which different assignments fostered their cognitive frame-changing processes, specifically in regards to how each assignment forced them to abandon existingways of thinking, explore new frames of reference, and integrate multiple cognitive perspectives.Horn found that developmental assignments involving higher experiential variety and novelty weremore likely to be positively associated with frame-changing skills. He also found that experientialvariety positively correlated with growth in self-reported adaptive problem solving skills.

Experiential variety in self-development activities. Langkamer (2008) extended the prin-ciple of experiential variety to a third mode of learning—self development. This form of leadershipdevelopment was defined by Boyce, Zaccaro, and Wisecarver (2010, p. 162) as “a process in whichleaders take personal responsibility for initiating, sustaining, and evaluating growth in their ownleadership capacities and in their conceptual frames about the conduct of leadership.” Thus, if thelearning focus is on adaptability, then self-developers would need to insert experiential variety intotheir self-learning curriculum. Langkamer (2008) tested this assertion by asking managers in amultilevel marketing organization to describe their self-developmental experiences and to completea series of adaptive problem solving exercises requiring demonstration of frame-changing skills.Examples of self-development experiences can include attending self-selected workshops, readingbooks or watching videos about targeted skills, and developing one’s own practice exercises. Theself-development descriptions provided by these managers were coded for the amount of experi-ential variety each reflected; responses to the business scenario were rated for their degree ofdisplayed adaptability. Langkamer found that experiential variety in self-development exercises wasassociated with higher scores on the adaptive decision-making measure.

This body of research demonstrates the validity of experiential variety as a key component ofadaptability training and development programs. However, Zaccaro (2009) argued that such varietyneeds to be paired with information provision to actualize its instructional potential. Several of thestudies reviewed above found that experiential variety was potent only under conditions of providedguidance or feedback (e.g., Zaccaro & Banks, 2004; Zaccaro, Gulick, et al., 2010; Zaccaro, Nelson,et al., 2010), and other studies have highlighted the importance of information provision inadaptability training (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). We now review this research, highlightingspecific prescriptions for growing adaptive expertise.

Strategic Information Provision

Several studies have focused on the kinds of instructions and guidance that maximize the gainsthat can accrue from adaptability training interventions (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002, 2008, 2010;Kozlowski et al., 2001). We term this process as strategic information provision because it refers to


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

learning and performance guidance applied at specific and timely moments in the learning processto maximize gains. We group strategic information provision approaches into two categories: (1)instructions and guidance provided prior to practice and performance trials in training, and (2)feedback and guidance provided during and after training trials.

Pre-performance instructions. Pre-performance instructions serve three functions. First,they can help activate the kinds of strategic mental models that facilitate adaptive performance(Smith et al., 1997). For example, Marks, Zaccaro, and Mathieu (2000) observed that whensimulated leaders gave teams pre-mission briefs about how to respond to significant risks andopportunities that would occur in a military simulation, teams displayed more accuracy andsimilarity in their shared mental models, which in turn, improved team adaptive performance. Burke(1999) extended this research by including in the pre-mission briefings a rationale for why certaincue-action contingency linkages were necessary—such information was designed to help teammembers understand relationships within their shared strategic mental models, thereby fosteringtheir collective adaptive expertise. She found that such enhanced instruction improved the qualityof team mental models and team performance. Indeed, only those teams that received cue-actioncontingency information were able to adapt successfully to a novel operating environment.

The second function of pre-trial instructions is to prime certain ways of thinking about upcomingcomplex problems (Ely et al., 2009). Such priming can be used to prompt critical thinking andself-regulation processes. In the present review, we focus on two forms of pre-trial instructions,adaptive guidance (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002) and frame-change advisement (Zaccaro, Conjar,Midberry, Ely, & Bryson, 2010). Adaptive guidance entails (a) providing instructions to trainees onhow they should approach task performance, and (b) adapting feedback and instruction based on theperformance of trainees during practice trials (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Frame-change advisementinvolves providing instruction to trainees on the use of adaptive problem solving processes,emphasizing the need to consider alternative frames of reference, and providing prompts to traineesduring practice trials to engage in frame changing (Ely et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2009; Zaccaro, Conjar,et al., 2010). Several empirical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of such instruction onadaptive performance, including some that have combined this type of instruction with experientialvariety. However, because adaptive guidance and frame-change advisement combine both pre-practice instruction with mid- and post-practice feedback, we will review those studies in moredetail in the section below on feedback.

A third function of pre-trial instructions is to help trainees manage their motivation andemotions during the learning process. Error management training has been touted as an effectiveapproach to growing adaptability skills (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Ely et al., 2009). However,to maximize the effectiveness of such training, trainees need to be instructed not to beconcerned about making errors and that such errors can help learning to occur (Dormann &Frese, 1994; Frese et al., 1991). To examine the use of such pre-performance instruction, Keithand Frese (2005) manipulated whether participants were (a) encouraged to make errors andinstructed on the benefits of learning from errors, or (b) told to avoid errors. They observed thattrainees encouraged to make errors exhibited better transfer of what was learned in training toa new and different task during a performance trial (i.e., exhibited adaptive transfer; Smith etal., 1997). However, on tasks requiring routine solutions, trainees receiving error managementinstructions performed at similar levels of performance, attesting to the specific influence oferror management instructions on adaptability.

Bell and Kozlowski (2008) manipulated both error framing and emotion control strategies inpre-task instructions given to trainees. The error framing instructions were similar to those used byKeith and Frese (2005). Their emotion control manipulation entailed a discussion of the negativeeffects of anxiety on performance and instruction in a self-dialogue strategy designed to promotepositive reactions and feelings of self control. Bell and Kozlowski found that error framing increasedtrainees’ focus on mastering new material for those individuals who did not have a generalizedmastery orientation. State mastery orientation in turn promoted metacognitive activity and intrinsictask motivation, leading ultimately to improvements in adaptive transfer. Emotion control instruc-tions reduced anxiety, which in turn boosted self-efficacy and, in turn, adaptive transfer. Thus, Bell


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

and Kozlowski demonstrated that adaptability training ought to include instructions that specificallyhelp trainees frame errors as opportunities to learn and how to manage the anxiety that can emergefrom making errors.

A clear implication of these two studies is that error management training is most beneficial iferror-framing instructions are administered early in the training cycle. Ely (2009) found support forthis prescription in a study in which she contrasted error framing provided either early or later intraining. She also varied whether trainees received early or later in training, self-regulationinstructions requiring them to evaluate the effectiveness of their current strategies and to considerif alternative strategies may be useful to consider. She found that adaptive transfer was more likelyto occur when error management instruction occurred early in training, and strategy regulationinstruction occurred later in training. We now discuss the importance of information and guidanceat later points in training.

Within and post-performance feedback and guidance. The provision of performancefeedback is a critical component of most successful training programs (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).Zaccaro et al. (2009) argued that specific types of training feedback also facilitate post-trainingadaptive performance. Research suggests that information provision during and after trainingperformance trials contributes to the development of adaptive expertise in two ways. First, feedbackon why certain completed actions were correct or incorrect relative to problem events helps traineesunderstand how strategies differ across different contexts (see Zaccaro et al., 2009). Along this line,Kiechel et al. (2000) had teams complete a military simulation training exercise and provided eitherfeedback containing only outcome information or feedback that also included information about thebehaviors displayed during the performance trial. They found that teams receiving team-levelbehavior and outcome feedback displayed higher levels of adaptive performance than teamsreceiving outcome feedback only or no feedback.

Along with this approach to performance feedback, a second way strategic information provisionfosters development of adaptability skills is through the technique of adaptive guidance (Bell &Kozlowski, 2002), mentioned earlier in this article. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) described adaptiveguidance as specific instruction on how to improve ways of thinking about a problem during andafter performance periods. In an experimental study, they provided suggestions to trainees onspecific areas they could address to improve their future performance. This guidance was adaptivein that it was individualized for the trainee based upon his or her previous performance. Bell andKozlowski found that trainees receiving this guidance displayed significant gains in performanceduring an adaptation trial.

Other studies have examined the adaptive performance implications of providing frame-changeadvisement during training practice trials. Zaccaro, Conjar et al. (2010) manipulated the provisionof (a) adaptive thinking instructions before practice trials, and (b) guidance and prompts to traineesduring practice to alter their frames of reference. They observed that soldiers who received suchinformation both before and during practice trials of a military training exercise performed better onsubsequent adaptive decision trials than those who did not receive the information; they also foundthat this information did not help with routine decisions, affirming its explicit utility for fosteringadaptation.

Two studies described earlier in this article paired frame-changing guidance with experientialvariety to trainees either working individually (Zaccaro, Nelson, et al., 2010) or in teams(Zaccaro, Gulick, et al., 2010). To review, both studies used a city planning simulation as atraining platform in which participants confronted either three similar city problems (surfacevariability), or three very different problems (structural variability). In the information provi-sion condition, participants also received adaptive thinking instructions prior to performance,and frame-change prompts throughout the practice trials. The results of both studies indicatedthat those trainees or trainee teams that received both experiential variety and frame-changeguidance made adaptive decisions during the final performance trial. Trainees receiving onlyone of these interventions did not perform significantly differently than those who receivedneither experiential variety nor frame-change guidance.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Applications: Developing Adaptive Leaders in Organizations

In sum, what does the research we have reviewed here suggest about how organizations andconsultants can develop adaptive leaders? We argue that this research attests to the value ofusing experiential variety and strategic information provision to grow adaptability skills.Training interventions implemented with the intent of growing adaptive expertise need toincorporate design strategies that grow skills needed for leader adaptability such as frame-changing skill. Here, we have synthesized research findings that suggest that experientialvariety and strategic information provision, particularly in the form of frame-changing guid-ance, are two key design strategies that contribute to frame-changing skill. We believe that byincorporating these design principles, organizations can better develop the frame-changing skilland thus adaptive expertise of organizational leaders. We now turn to specific recommendationsfor incorporating experiential variety and strategic information provision into training anddevelopment interventions for developing adaptive expertise. Table 1 outlines several basicprescriptions extrapolated from the research reviewed above. In discussing these recommen-dations below, we also explore how these techniques can extend to the development ofcross-cultural adaptability. While few empirical studies have tested this approach directly, wedraw on related research to provide insight on why and how such tools would help developcross-cultural adaptability skills.

The research we have cited indicates that interventions focused on developing adaptabilityshould include variety in the practice scenarios or other stimuli that are presented in training ordevelopmental experiences. Classroom training using case studies or similar designs can incorporatevariety by presenting scenarios for which solution strategies used in earlier scenarios no longerapply. Developmental work assignments and self-development activities should be planned with theintent of providing a similar level of variety among work experiences or learning activities. Theprimary goal of providing such variety is to create a situation where previous cognitive frames areno longer appropriate, requiring trainees to engage in frame-changing processes and to activelyconsider alternative ways of thinking about a problem. Such activities should lead trainees todevelop new and more complex cognitive frames, enhancing their adaptive expertise, and improvingtheir ability to apply existing skills to new and unfamiliar situations.

In addition to incorporating experiential variety, organizations should look to provide some form offrame-change guidance to trainees. As noted by Zyphur (2009), engaging in metacognitive activities suchas frame-changing is difficult and unlikely to happen by chance. Zaccaro and colleagues demonstratedempirically that the full benefit of practice variety was only realized when paired with this type offrame-changing guidance (Zaccaro, Gulick, et al., 2010; Zaccaro, Nelson, et al., 2010). Such guidanceshould be tailored to help trainees recognize the need for frame-changing and understand when it is mostimportant. Moreover, this guidance should provide them with information on the types of frames toconsider developing and using. This adaptive guidance can be given explicitly, in didactic style in theclassroom, for instance, or just-in-time, from assigned mentors or executive coaches. For instance, whendiscussing a challenge facing an individual leader, a coach can explicitly push the leader to consider otherperspectives, and the solution strategy each perspective implies.

Developing Cross-Cultural Adaptability Skills

Various labels have been used to describe relevant facets of the frame changing process inintercultural research, including code switching, frame switching, and perspective taking (Galinsky,2002; Hong et al., 2000; Molinsky, 2007; Rentsch, Gunderson, Goodwin, & Abbe, 2007). Takentogether, these streams of research suggest that experiential variety and frame-changing guidancecan be valuable in developing cross-culturally adaptive leaders. Global and expatriate leaders oftenfail to perform at expected levels because of their inability to change their leadership approach tofit different cultural contexts (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). In essence, they apply leadership mental


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

models, or frames of reference, that work in their own culture, to interactions with different cultures(Black & Gregersen, 2000). To develop cross-cultural leadership skills, these leaders would need (a)learning experiences that help them discover new, culturally variant leadership frames, and (b)guidance on the appropriate application of these frames.

Table 1Summary of Experiential Variety and Strategic Information ProvisionTraining Strategies

DefinitionExamples for incorporating

training strategy

Experiential variety Incorporating variety into practicescenarios or other trainingstimuli that requires traineesto change their existingperformance strategy in afundamental way such that anentirely new strategy isconsidered.

Change practice scenarios in trainingsuch that each new one requires afundamentally different solutionstrategy.

Present case studies that offerentirely different problems; eachcase would require a uniquesolution strategy and newunderstanding of key variables togenerate that solution.

Provide cross-cultural interactionsthat activate different culturaldimensions; have learnerexperience fundamentally differentcultures, requiring uniqueinteraction strategies.

Provide a range of developmentalwork assignments that differfundamentally in the kinds ofproblems and work issues beingaddressed.

Include in a self-learning curriculuma range of activities that differ inthe types of problems addressed,and in the ways of thinking aboutthose problems.

Strategic information provisionand frame-changingguidance

Providing information in the formof feedback and guidancebefore, during, and afterevents.

Describe the processes involved inmonitoring one’s own thinkingand behavior.

Explain in advance how solutionstrategies may change dependingupon different situations that maybe encountered.

Provide feedback that focuses onreconsidering performance andcognitive strategies in differentcontexts.

Provide feedback that offers thereasons why specific decisionswere correct or incorrect so thatlessons learned can be applied tonew situations.

Encourage trainees to identifydifferent ways of thinking about aparticular problem.

Provide advance information and real-time support for different culturalinterpretations of situations.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

In developing global leadership, “crossing country and cultural borders is the determiningpiece” (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002, p. 22), facilitating a process which builds people who are“flexible in thought” (p. 35) as well as adaptive in leadership behavior. Intercultural immersion isa type of experiential variety that may be most valuable for cross-cultural adaptability and globalleadership (Mendenhall, Kuhlmann, Stahl, & Osland, 2002; Osland, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland,2006). Living and working in a foreign culture, more than any other type of developmental workassignment, “makes it possible to have mind-altering, head-cracking experiences” (Gregersen,Morrison, & Black, 1998, p. 30) that prepare individuals to lead more effectively across cultures.These paradigm-shifting learning experiences effectively “unfreeze” individuals’ cultural mindsets,and prepare them to more readily engage in discrete frame-breaking episodes in subsequentinterpersonal and strategic contexts (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2008; cf. Horn, 2008).

Intercultural experiential variety as part of global leadership development can also lead tocognitive and moral maturation, enabling higher levels of processing of complex, even paradoxical,information (Kohonen, 2004). At higher levels of leadership, cross-cultural experiential variety maybenefit strategic decision-making aspects of cross-cultural leadership (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002),because “our cultural mindset influences the fundamentals of a business” (Rosen, Digh, Singer, &Phillips, 2000, p. 214). Indeed, cross-cultural experiential variety of senior leaders has been linkedto firm-level performance (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001). Such variety can also be usedto develop adaptability skills in cross-cultural simulations called cultural assimilators (Bhawuk,2001). Cultural assimilators are scenario-based, feedback-rich exercises that can provide (a) inten-sive culture-specific information to prepare leaders to adapt to specific cultural contexts, or (b)broad, culture-general theory, to help them focus on cultural dimensions that apply to many cultures(see Abbe, Gulick, & Herman, 2007 for a relevant review). Thus, such exercises can combineexperiential variety with strategic information provision to foster cultural adaptability.

These arguments favor the utility of experiential variety and strategic information provision incultural adaptability training. Accordingly, they fit nicely into the prior research we reviewed ondeveloping more generic adaptability skills. We urge that future research efforts extend the findingsfound in prior adaptation research within single cultural domains to settings that require multicul-tural adaptation.

References

Abbe, A., Gulick, L. M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2007). Developing cross-cultural competence in military leaders:A conceptual and empirical foundation. Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences.

Banks, D. (2006). Stretch experiences and leader development: The relationships among work experience,individual differences, contextual variables, and leader adaptability. Dissertation Abstracts InternationalSection B: Sciences and Engineering, 67, 3493.

Banks, D., Bader, P. K., Fleming, P. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Barber, H. F. (2001, April). Leader adaptability: Therole of work experiences and individual differences. Paper presented at the 16th annual conference of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, andperformance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267–306.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements onself-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296–316.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2010). Toward a theory of learner-centered training design: An integrativeframework of active learning. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and developmentin organizations. New York: Routledge.

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2001). Evolution of culture assimilators: Toward theory-based assimilators. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 141–163.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (2000). High impact training: Forging leaders for the global frontier. HumanResource Management, 39, 173–184.

Boyce, L., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. (2010). Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes:Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. Leadership Quar-terly, 21, 159–178.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Burke, C. S. (1999). Examination of the cognitive mechanisms through which team leaders promote effectiveteam processes and adaptive performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No.9961527).

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: Aconceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.

Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B. (2001). Bundling human capital with organizationalcontext: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay.Academy of Management Journal, 44, 493–511.

DeYoung, C. G., Flanders, J. L., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Cognitive abilities involved in insight problemsolving: An individual differences model. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 278–290.

Dormann, T., & Frese, M. (1994). Error management training: Replication and the function of exploratorybehavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 365–372.

Duncker, K. (1926). A qualitative (experimental and theoretical) study of productive thinking (solving compre-hensible problems). Journal of Genetic Psychology, 68, 97–116.

Ely, K. (2009). Sequencing training interventions to promote self-regulation, knowledge, and adaptive transfer(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3388086).

Ely, K., Zaccaro, S. J., & Conjar, E. A. (2009). Leadership development: Training design strategies for growingadaptability in leaders. In C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 175–196).London: Routledge.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Frese, M., Brodbeck, F. C., Heinbokel, T., Mooser, C., Schleiffenbaum, E., & Theimann, P. (1991). Errors intraining computer skills: On the positive functions of errors. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 77–93.

Galinsky, A. D. (2002). Creating and reducing intergroup conflict: The role of perspective taking in affectingout-group evaluations. In H. Sondak (Ed.), Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (pp.85–113). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking: Fostering social bonds and facilitating socialcoordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–125.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D.Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of training: Contemporary research and applications. (pp. 9–46). New York:Academic Press.

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan

Management Review, 40, 21–32.Heinen, B., Zaccaro, S. J., Shuffler, M. L., Nelson, J., Smith, K., & Ryan, K. M. (2007, April). Stimulus variety

as a learning principle that fosters adaptive performance. Paper presented at the 22th annual meeting of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivistapproach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.

Horn, Z. N. J. (2008). Linking developmental stretch assignments with adaptive outcomes: The importance ofcognitive frame complexity. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest (UMI No. 3321167).

Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivityenhancement (Vol. 2, pp. 7–65). New York: Praeger.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: Emotion control and metacognitionas mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 677–691.

Kemp, C. F., Wood, G., Cracraft, M., Horn, Z., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2004, April). Effects of variability and feedbackon team adaptability training. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Chicago.

Kiechel, K. L., Marsh, S., Boyce, L. A., Chandler, C., Fleming, & Zaccaro, S. J. (2000, April). Feedback in ateam context: The impact of feedback characteristics on multiple levels of performance. Paper presented atthe 15th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Kimball, D. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.) TheOxford handbook of memory (pp. 109–122). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kohonen, E. (2004). Learning through narratives about the impact of international assignments on identity.International Studies of Management and Organization, 34, 27–45.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1998). Training and developing adaptive teams: Theory, principles, and research. In J. A.Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and teamtraining. (pp. 115–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Toney, R. J., Mullins, M. E., Weissbein, D. A., Brown, K. G., & Bell, B. S. (2001).Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems. In E. Salas (Ed.),Human/technology interaction in complex systems (Vol. 10, pp. 59–123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Langkamer, K. (2008) Development of a nomological net surrounding leader development. DissertationAbstracts International Section B: Sciences and Engineering, 69:1995.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implication of leader briefings andteam-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,971–986.

McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: Lessons of international experience.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmentalcomponents of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544–560.

Mendenhall, M. E., Kuhlmann, T. M., Stahl, G. K., & Osland, J. (2002). Employee development and expatriateassignments: A review of the expatriate adjustment theory literature. In M. Gannon & K. Newman (Eds.),The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 155–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Molinsky, A. L. (2007). Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting behavior inforeign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 622–640.

Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Nelson, J. K., & Swartout, E. (2009, July). Proof of concept research for developingadaptive performance: Task 2 report, validation plan. Arlington, VA: PDRI.

Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1983). The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under differentforms of arbitration. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 36, 378–388.

Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2008). Global leadership development. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A.Bird, G. R. Oddou, & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (pp.160–174). New York: Routledge.

Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for CreativeLeadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 151–182). San Francisco: Wiley

Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E., & Osland, A. (2006). Developing global leadership capabilities andglobal mindset: A review. In G. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in International HumanResource Management (pp. 197–222). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Rentsch, J. R., Gunderson, A., Goodwin, G. F., & Abbe, A. (2007). Conceptualizing multicultural perspectivetaking skills. (TR 1216). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences.

Rosen, R., Digh, P., Singer, M., & Phillips, C. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership andnational culture. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for trainingdesign strategies. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace:Applications of psychological research. (pp. 89–118): American Psychological Association.

Streufert, S., & Swezey, R. W. (1986). Complexity, managers, and organizations. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Zaccaro, S. J. (2009). Principles and strategies for developing skills that promote adaptive performance.

Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences.Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and

practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource Management, 43, 367–380.Zaccaro, S. J., Banks, D., Kiechel-Koles, L., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2009). Leader and team adaptation: The

influences and development of key attributes and processes. Tech. Rep. No. #1256, U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA.

Zaccaro, S. J., Conjar, E., Midberry, C., Ely, K., & Bryson, J. (2010). Developing military adaptive thinkingskills: A test of a training strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gulick, L., Heinen, B., Herman, J., Ely, K., Nelson, J. K., & Ryan, K. (2010). The influence ofexperiential variety, frame-change guidance, and team attributes on team adaptive decision-making andperformance in training. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Zaccaro, S. J., Nelson, J. K., Gulick, L. M. V., & DiRosa, G. (2010). The influences of practice variety,frame-change advisement, and metacognitive ability on adaptive decision-making in training. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Zaccaro, S. J., Wood, G., & Herman, J. (2006). Developing the adaptive and global leader: HRM strategieswithin a career-long perspective. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The human resources revolution: Whyputting people first matters. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.

Zyphur, M. J. (2009). When mindsets collide: Switching analytical mindsets to advance organization science.Academy of Management Review, 34, 677–688.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Documents

Strategic Information Provision