The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.

htm

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour: a qualitative study

Eva Cools
People and Organisation Department, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Gent, Belgium, and

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 103

Herman Van Den Broeck

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School and Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute further insights into how cognitive styles inuence managerial behaviour, using a qualitative approach. Design/methodology/approach Written testimonies were gathered from people with different cognitive styles, and content analysed (n 100). Findings Qualitative evidence was found for managerial style preferences in accordance with cognitive styles, leading to various ways of decision making, conict handling, and giving feedback. Research limitations/implications Future research should explore how these results can be linked to contextual elements and to managerial performance. Practical implications This study contributes to increased managerial style awareness, which is important for intrapersonal development and interpersonal cooperation. Originality/value This is one of a few studies that have sought to qualitatively grasp the implications of having a particular cognitive style. It provides relevant insights into task- and people-oriented managerial practices beyond previous, mainly quantitative studies. Keywords Management styles, Qualitative research, Organizational behaviour Paper type Research paper

Introduction In addition to situational factors, individual characteristics play an important role in determining managerial performance (Stevens and Ash, 2001). According to Berr et al. (2000), there is at this moment considerable interest in the potential impact of individual dispositions on managerial behaviour and effectiveness. Cognitive styles may not be ignored in this regard, as they are expected to inuence how people develop their managerial role (Buttner et al., 1999). Research has shown that cognitive style differences inuence learning, problem solving, decision making, communication, interpersonal functioning, and creativity in important ways (Hayes and Allinson, 1994; Kirton, 2003; Sadler-Smith, 1998). Cognitive styles are believed to be a crucial factor for effective decision making and for successful interpersonal cooperation (Armstrong and Priola, 2001). The aim of this study is to examine the link between cognitive styles and managerial behaviour, using a qualitative approach. The uniqueness of the study lies in the qualitative approach that was chosen to address this issue and in the combined focus on task-oriented and people-oriented managerial behaviour. This way, this research wants to rene and extend ndings from previous, mainly quantitative studies on the relation between cognitive styles and particular aspects of managerial behaviour. Although there is widespread empirical interest in cognitive styles,

Education Training Vol. 50 No. 2, 2008 pp. 103-114 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0040-0912 DOI 10.1108/00400910810862092

ET 50,2

qualitative studies that provide further support to the practical relevance of cognitive styles for organisations are currently lacking (Rayner, 2006). With the increased prevalence of executive coaching and the use of managerial assessment, research on the impact of individual differences on managerial behaviour is highly relevant (Berr et al., 2000). Conceptual framework Cognitive styles A cognitive style has been dened as the way in which people perceive stimuli and how they use this information for guiding their behaviour (Hayes and Allinson, 1998). Cognitive styles have gained prominence in the education and management literature over the last decades (Hayes and Allinson, 1994, 1998). Traditionally, cognitive style research has focused mainly on the distinction between analytical and intuitive thinking (Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith, 2003). However, empirical research on the relation between different cognitive style measures found that cognitive style is a complex variable with multiple dimensions (Leonard et al., 1999). Recently, Cools and Van den Broeck (2007) reported on the development of a reliable, valid, and convenient multidimensional cognitive style instrument the Cognitive Style Indicator (CoSI) for use with managerial and professional groups. They demonstrated the relevance and usefulness of identifying three cognitive styles (Table I). People with a knowing style are characterised by a preference for facts and details, while people with a planning style prefer structure and order, and people with a creating style tend to proliferate ideas and to like experimentation. Cools and Van den Broeck (2007) found substantial support for this instruments construct validity by including other cognitive style instruments, and personality and academic performance measures in the validation process. The managerial role As managerial positions encompass a wide range of activities (Magretta, 2002; Mintzberg, 1994), management has been dened as the process of working with and through others to achieve organisational objectives in an efcient and ethical way (Kreitner et al., 2002, p. 8). This denition implies a task-oriented (achieving goals) and a people-oriented aspect (working with and through others). Whereas early management theories have focused on task issues, contemporary models increasingly value the human aspect (Kouzes and Posner, 2002).
Knowing style Facts Details Logical Reective Objective Impersonal Rational Precision Planning style Sequential Structured Conventional Conformity Planned Organised Systematic Routine Creating style Possibilities Ideas Impulsive Flexible Open-ended Novelty Subjective Inventive

104

Table I. Description of the CoSI model

Note: Based on Table 1 in Cools and Van den Broeck (2007)

The aim of this research was not to derive an exhaustive list of the activities of managers, but rather to focus on how they perform their roles. According to Lamond (2004), there has recently been more attention on how managers execute their tasks. Lamond (2004) made an interesting distinction between enacted managerial styles (i.e. actual behaviour) and preferred managerial styles (i.e. preferences people have regarding their roles). There is no consensus regarding which factors constitute this managerial style. This study focused on preferred managerial styles, using cognitive styles as the distinguishing factor. In line with the above denition of management, task and people-oriented practices were involved in this research. With regard to the task-oriented aspects, the study focused on decision making, as this is an important informational aspect of the managerial role that might be inuenced by cognitive style differences (Leonard et al., 1999). Previous quantitative research found that people prefer decision-making processes that are compatible with their cognitive style (Gallen, 2006; Hough and Ogilvie, 2005). For the people-oriented aspects, this study focused on conict handling and giving feedback, as these are two important managerial tasks (Kouzes and Posner, 2002). Research evidence suggests that cognitive style differences may fundamentally affect interpersonal relationships (Armstrong, 2000). Researchers found, for instance, relationships between peoples preferred ways of information processing and their styles of handling interpersonal conicts (Johnson, 1997). Research design To grasp the managerial implications of having a knowing, planning, or creating style, a qualitative approach seemed warranted. Qualitative research leads to a better understanding of the meaning of what is observed and results in data of greater depth and richness (Patton, 2002). Despite the call for more qualitative research in organisational behaviour and management studies (e.g. Gephart, 2004; Symon et al., 2000), there is still a lack of qualitative studies on cognitive styles. Recently, Rayner (2006) stated that there can be no doubt that the psychometric tradition and positivist paradigm dominate the cognitive style research domain. He calls for more functional research that takes practitioner awareness and applications of cognitive styles into account. By using a qualitative approach, this study wanted to contribute to these calls for an increased focus on the relevance of cognitive style research for practice. In sum, decision making, information processing, and dealing with people are important aspects of effective management (Tett et al., 2000). As cognitive styles are individual preferences with regard to how people perceive, think, learn, solve problems, and relate to others (Witkin et al., 1977), looking at the inuence of cognitive style differences on managerial behaviour is highly relevant. Based on previous (mainly quantitative) research ndings, people with different cognitive styles are expected to approach their management role differently. Methodology Procedure and sample Management and MBA students were invited to write a testimony (with choice as to content and organisation) on how they typically behaved in an organisational context as part of an assignment. In addition, they completed the 18-item cognitive style indicator (CoSI) (Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007). Item and factor analyses conrmed

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 105

ET 50,2

106

the three-dimensional cognitive style model, with Cronbach alpha coefcients in this study being 0.78, 0.83, and 0.77 for the knowing, planning, and creating style respectively. A total of 553 testimonies were collected in total, including both 275 management and MBA students of a leading Western European business school, as well as a convenience sample of 278 employees. Using the procedure adopted by Buttereld et al. (1996), employee data were collected through the students who each contacted one employee. Of all the respondents, 63 per cent were men and 37 per cent were women, both in the student and in the employee sample. Their age ranged from 21 to 67 years, with a mean age of 30.41 (SD 10.93). The mean age of the employee sample, however, was higher than the mean age of the student sample and it contained a broader range of ages (M 38.31 years, SD 11.35 versus M 23.22 years, SD 1.59 respectively). From the 275 business school students, 19 per cent attended an MBA, whereas the others were graduate students who attended a one-year full-time management education. The 278 employees performed a wide range of functions in diverse sectors and represented various hierarchical levels. For further analyses, out of the 553 testimonies completed, those with the most extreme prole were selected (i.e. people who scored more than 1 SD above the mean for one of the cognitive styles). In this sense, sampling was based on theoretical considerations instead of randomness to have clear examples of cognitive style differences (Patton, 2002). This way, 100 testimonies were actually used in the nal sample (16 people with a knowing style, 41 with a planning style, and 43 with a creating style), containing testimonies from 57 management and MBA students and from 43 employees. Coding and analyses A three-stage content analytic procedure was used, distinguishing a unitising, categorising, and classifying stage (Neuendorf, 2002). (1) The written testimonies were entered into the qualitative software package ATLAS.ti. Units for analysis were paragraphs in each testimony that dealt with separate managerial behaviour. (2) As recommended by other scholars (Potter and Levine-Donnerstein, 1999), a scheme was developed to code the data. Three categories were distinguished: task-oriented behaviours (i.e. paragraphs on decision making, communication, and problem solving), people-oriented aspects (i.e. quotes on teamwork, interpersonal behaviour, conict handling, and giving feedback), and self-awareness (i.e. quotes in which people indicated the tasks they (dis)like most in their job, and their strengths and weaknesses). (3) Finally, a cross-case analysis was carried out. For each of the codes, the different cognitive styles were compared. Results The study led to a rich amount of information on how people with various cognitive styles prefer to perform certain aspects of their managerial role. On the basis of the qualitative data, an image of managerial characteristics for each of the cognitive styles was built (see Table II).

Knowing style Motto Attracted by Searches for Think before you act Facts, logic, rationality Accuracy

Planning style

Creating style

Plan before you act Cre-act Structure, plans, control Ideas, possibilities Certainty Renewal Structured analysis Quick process Organising skills Sticking to agreements Unforeseen changes Rational, diplomatic way Quick solutions Direct, diplomatic approach Both positive and negative feedback Dutiful Demanding to oneself and others Too controlling Intuitive analysis Fast process Strong imagination Thinking out-of-the-box Implementation of ideas Mainly emotional way Assertive, sometimes even provocative Direct, constructive approach Emphasise positive over negative feedback Flexible Difculty compromising Impulsive

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 107

Task-oriented behaviour Decision making Detailed analysis Take their time Strengths Analytical skills Logical reasoning Weaknesses Creativity People-oriented behaviour Conict handling Rational, direct way Based on rational and logical arguments Feedback Rational, straightforward approach Emphasise negative over positive feedback Strength Reliable Weaknesses Too straightforward Lack of empathy Selling ideas

Table II. Managerial characteristics of different cognitive styles

Knowing style Regarding task-oriented behaviour, the analyses show that people with a knowing style like an analytical approach. They want to make informed decisions on the basis of facts and gures, using logical and rational arguments. They prefer to take their time to make decisions, sometimes postponing them to collect more information. A lack of data or relevant information can be a source of doubt for knowing people in the decision-making process. People with a knowing style consider their analytical skills and their logical reasoning as their major strengths. However, this is sometimes also seen as a disadvantage, as they have more difculties with nding creative, out-of-the-box solutions. People with a knowing style do not like tasks that seem to serve no purpose, that are undened, intellectually not challenging, and that lack supporting facts and gures. Regarding people-oriented behaviour, people with a knowing style preferably interact with others in a straightforward, rational way. Rational and logical arguments are the basis of acting in conict situations as well. People with a knowing style also like to give feedback in line with their strengths, preferring a rational and straightforward approach. They are inclined to give more negative than positive feedback, as they nd it more useful to give people ways to improve their weaknesses instead of just praising them. Accordingly, a weakness that several knowing people have mentioned is that they are sometimes too focused on rationality and logic when interacting with others leading to a lack of empathy and difculties in explaining and selling their ideas.

ET 50,2

108

Planning style People with a planning style also prefer an analytical approach to deal with tasks. They do not like to make decisions on the basis of gut-feeling. However, the analyses indicate that planning types are, in their decision making, less focused on facts and gures (compared to people with a knowing style), but prefer above all a structured approach. They try to be quick decision makers in order to shorten the uncertainty that surrounds the decision-making process, as this confronts them with many doubts. People with a planning style report strong organising and planning skills. They feel uncomfortable with uncertainty, unexpected changes, and strategic reorientations. Accordingly, planning types like tasks that involve a planned, organised, and methodical approach that lead to concrete results. People with a planning style preferably interact more in a rational than in an emotional way with others, but they are also concerned with diplomacy. In this sense, they are less focused on rationality as opposed to people with a knowing style. People with a planning style prefer a calm, direct, honest, and diplomatic approach when dealing with conicts. If a conict occurs, they want to handle it as soon as possible. Like people with a knowing style, they mostly prefer to solve conicts through open discussion. Similarly, people with a planning style like to give feedback in a direct, straightforward, and diplomatic way. They give both positive and negative feedback. They nd positive feedback important to motivate people. They also have no problem providing negative feedback to give people the chance to improve. Creating style People with a creating style tend to make decisions primarily on the basis of intuition or gut-feeling, using objective information and data only in a second phase. They describe decision making as a mixture of an intuitive and rational process. People with a creating style do not doubt much when making decisions and even if they do, it does not prevent them from fast decision making. People with a creating style have a strong imagination and are good at developing new ways of doing things. Accordingly, they prefer tasks which require creativity, action, exibility, and own input. The weaknesses that are reported by creating types are related to their strength in imagination, as they sometimes keep on suggesting original ideas without considering their possible implementation. Regarding people-oriented behaviour, the analyses show that people with a creating style use either an emotional or a rational approach when interacting with others. Some people tend to use a rational approach to solve conicts (i.e. staying calm, listening to the different opinions, searching for consensus), while others are more emotionally involved. In general, people with a creating style assertively try to persuade and convince others of their ideas. However, they can change their minds when others are convincingly enough and provide good arguments. People with a creating style prefer to give feedback in a direct and honest way, although they attach a lot of importance to being positive and constructive to make people feel good and to stimulate their self-esteem. People with a creating style report that they have a personal approach in giving feedback, adapting it according to the situation or the person they have to deal with. Discussion and conclusion The unique contribution of this study lies in the qualitative approach that was used to grasp the implications of cognitive style differences on managerial behaviour.

Recently, several scholars emphasised the need for more qualitative research on cognitive styles to better understand what it implicates to have a certain cognitive style (Rayner, 2006; Riding, 2000). On the basis of content analyses of 100 written testimonies, differences in preferred management styles for people with a knowing, planning, and creating style were identied, both for various task-oriented and people-oriented managerial practices. This study renes and extends previous quantitative results on the link between cognitive styles and managerial behaviour. Additionally, this study provides qualitative evidence for the usefulness of distinguishing between the three cognitive styles of the CoSI model (Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007) contrary to the dichotomous thinking in several other cognitive style models (Allinson et al., 2001; Kirton, 2003). Discussion of ndings The qualitative analyses showed that people with a knowing and planning style tend to make decisions in an analytical way (although they emphasise different elements), whereas people with a creating style combine an intuitive and rational approach. Creating types do not mind making decisions based on gut-feeling, whereas knowing and planning people try to base their decisions on data and information. Knowing and creating types tend to be mainly focused on the content of decision making (taking facts-based or creative decisions respectively), whereas planning people mostly refer to the decision-making process as such. People with a knowing style like to take their time to make decisions, while people with a planning and creating style prefer quick decision making. Overall, these results strengthen and rene quantitative studies that found that people with different cognitive styles show different decision-making behaviour (Hough and Ogilvie, 2005; Leonard et al., 1999). Previous quantitative research with the CoSI model found that individuals with a knowing style preferred a logical, rational, and impersonal decision-making approach, whereas planning types favoured an objective, structured, conventional, and efcient problem-solving approach, and creating people had a preference for a creative, unconventional, exible way of decision making (Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007). On the basis of the above ndings, it can be concluded that the way in which people with different cognitive styles approach conict and feedback situations resembles their preferred way of decision making. People with a knowing and planning style both prefer a rational and straightforward interaction approach. Planning types, however, are more inclined to handle conicts and to give feedback in a diplomatic way, whereas knowing types purely focus on the rationality and logic of the situation. People with a creating style tend to be more emotionally involved, using a personal approach in handling conicts and giving people feedback. These results conrm that cognitive styles inuence how people relate to others, as has been shown in quantitative style research. Previous studies found that people with an analytical style tended to be more task oriented, relatively less friendly, more impersonal, and more self-controlling in their emotional behaviour. Intuitive people, on the contrary, have been shown to be more interpersonally oriented, expressive, relatively friendly, warm towards others, and serving more psychosocial functions during interpersonal relationships (for an overview of these ndings, see Armstrong, 2000; Priola et al., 2004). Cognitive styles also seem to inuence which tasks people prefer most in their job. People mostly like tasks that make use of their preferred way of perceiving and processing

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 109

ET 50,2

information. Leonard and Straus (1997) also found that people tend to develop those areas in their jobs they like and that they try to avoid those aspects they dislike. Given the largely ill-dened nature of the managerial role, part of managerial work is determining its own boundaries (Tett et al., 2000). The ndings of this study can be useful in this regard, as cognitive styles inuence the tasks people will emphasise most in their job. Research implications This study was a rst step in the direction of enhanced qualitative understanding of cognitive style differences. However, to increase the relevance and rigour of these ndings, further research will be needed combining both quantitative and qualitative (i.e. mixed-method) approach. Lamond (2004), for instance, developed a quantitative instrument to measure enacted and preferred managerial styles the managerial style measure (MSM) that can be useful to enhance and strengthen the qualitative ndings from this research project. A necessary next step will also be observing and interviewing people in organisations. This study was based on written testimonies, without taking into account contextual factors. A wide variety of people were involved in the study, but differences with regard to level and function could not be taken into account in the analyses. Recently, much attention has been devoted to the importance of the organisational context in organisational studies (Johns, 2006). Additionally, by integrating organisational context elements in future research, it will also be possible to take managerial effectiveness into account. There is currently considerable interest in the assessment of managerial performance and the development of managerial competency models (Tett et al., 2000). This study has not examined the inuence of preferred managerial styles on effectiveness. A next logical step will be to link it to performance. Furthermore, it can also be of interest to study managerial styles from the perspective of co-workers (subordinates, peers, supervisors), as they are in a unique position to provide valuable behavioural assessments for two reasons (Berr et al., 2000). On the one hand, colleagues are often affected by the consequences of the focal persons actions. On the other hand, they can observe this behaviour over time and in a variety of situations. Practical implications According to George (2003), to be authentic in your management behaviour means that you have to develop your own style in accordance with your personality and character. Whetten et al. (2000) emphasised the importance of intrapersonal skills for effective management. This means in their perspective developing self-awareness on the basis of a thorough analysis of ones strengths and weaknesses. Understanding the interplay between peoples preferences and their day-to-day workplace behaviour is crucial for designing and implementing effective individual development efforts (Berr et al., 2000; Riding and Rayner, 1998). As cognitive styles are considered to be fairly stable characteristics of people (Clapp, 1993), this does not imply changing ones style, but rather learning about the consequences of having a particular style. People can be trained to adopt strategies to overcome the weaknesses of their styles in specic situations (Armstrong and Sadler-Smith, 2006; Hough and Ogilvie, 2005). In this regard, some relevant action points were identied to enhance managerial style awareness (see Table III).

110

Knowing style Flexibility and change: learn to be more open to unforeseen situations and innovations as not everything can be planned beforehand Action! Stop planning, rethinking the planning, restructuring the planning of the planning: focus and go for it Stimulate your creativity: learn to think more out-of-the-box, give ideas a chance

Planning style

Creating style Project nalisation: commit yourself to both the conceptualisation and the implementation phase of projects Effective Decision Quality Acceptance: check the underlying facts before moving on with an idea Balance your creativity: check your ideas for their feasibility with someone else Empathy: learn to have understanding for people who need more details or procedures as you need them to implement your ideas Be open to the ideas of others. Listen. Do not impose your ideas

Task-oriented behaviour Speed of decision making: do not try to gather all possible information. Speed is as important as the quality of a decision Effective Decision Quality Acceptance: work on selling your decision to make sure people are convinced that it is the right one Stimulate your creativity: do not directly ask for proof, give ideas a chance

People-oriented behaviour Empathy: not everyone thinks in the same rational, logical way as you. Learn to understand other peoples logic Empathy: learn to be less demanding to yourself and others. Open up to other approaches, even if you would have done it differently Relax! Let yourself go from time to time, just enjoy

Learn to balance your direct and rational style with more emotional connection

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 111

Table III. Increasing ones style awareness: practical implications

ET 50,2

112

Importantly, no style is inherently better than another. Schroder (1994), for instance, found that cognitive styles are independent of management competence, but do inuence the way in which management competence is expressed. Understanding the implications of cognitive style differences can be a basis for fostering better working relationships (Allinson et al., 2001). Overlooking the impact of cognitive differences can lead to interpersonal disagreements and conict situations, as people with different cognitive styles may not understand or respect each other. Thus, to be successful, effective managers they should be aware of their own cognitive style and those of the people that surround them. George (2003) saw dealing with different types of people as an important developmental task for managers. Managers can increase their effectiveness by working collaboratively with people with various cognitive styles and paying attention to different point of views, attitudes, behaviours, perspectives, and actual cognitions (Riding and Rayner, 1998).
References Allinson, C.W., Armstrong, S.J. and Hayes, J. (2001), The effects of cognitive style on leader-member exchange: a study of manager-subordinate dyads, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 201-20. Armstrong, S.J. (2000), Individual differences in cognitive style and their potential effects on organizational behavior: a summary of recent empirical studies, in Riding, R.J. and Rayner, S.G. (Eds), International Perspectives on Individual Differences, Vol. 1, Cognitive Styles, Ablex, Stamford, CT, pp. 215-37. Armstrong, S.J. and Priola, V. (2001), Individual differences in cognitive style and their effects on task and social orientations of self-managed work teams, Small Group Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 283-312. Armstrong, S.J. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2006), Cognitive style and its relevance for the management of careers, paper presented at the 66th Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA, 11-16 August. Berr, S.A., Church, A.H. and Waclawski, J. (2000), The right personality is everything: linking personality preferences to managerial behaviors, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-57. Buttereld, K.D., Trevino, L.K. and Ball, G.A. (1996), Punishment from the managers perspective: a grounded investigation and inductive model, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1479-512. Buttner, E.H., Gryskiewicz, N. and Hidore, S.C. (1999), The relationship between styles of creativity and managerial skills assessment, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-38. Clapp, R.G. (1993), Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications: a longitudinal study of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, Psychological Reports, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 1235-45. Cools, E. and Van den Broeck, H. (2007), Development and validation of the cognitive style indicator, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 141 No. 4, pp. 359-87. Gallen, T. (2006), Managers and strategic decisions: does the cognitive style matter?, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 118-33. George, B. (2003), Authentic Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Gephart, R.P. Jr (2004), Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 454-62. Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1994), Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-71. Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1998), Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 847-71. Hodgkinson, G.P. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2003), Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 243-68. Hough, J.R. and Ogilvie, D.T. (2005), An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 417-48. Johns, G. (2006), The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408. Johnson, A.K. (1997), Conict-handling intentions and the MBTI: a construct validity study, Journal of Psychological Type, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 29-39. Kirton, M.J. (2003), Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, Routledge, New York, NY. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Buelens, M. (2002), Organizational Behaviour, 2nd European ed., McGraw-Hill, London. Lamond, D. (2004), A matter of style: reconciling Henri and Henry, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 330-56. Leonard, D. and Straus, S. (1997), Putting your companys whole brain to work, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 111-21. Leonard, N.H., Scholl, R.W. and Kowalski, K.B. (1999), Information processing style and decision making, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 407-20. Magretta, J. (2002), What Management Is: How It Works and Why Its Everyones Business, Prole Books, London. Mintzberg, H. (1994), Rounding out the managers job, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 11-26. Neuendorf, K. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Potter, W.J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999), Rethinking validity and reliability in content-analysis, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 258-84. Priola, V., Smith, J.L. and Armstrong, S.J. (2004), Group work and cognitive style: a discursive investigation, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 565-95. Rayner, S. (2006), What next? Developing global research and applied practice in the eld of cognitive and learning styles, in Lassen, L., Bostrom, L. and Evans, C. (Eds), Enabling Lifelong Learning in Education, Training and Development, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network, University of Oslo, Oslo (CD-ROM). Riding, R.J. (2000), Cognitive style: a strategic approach for advancement, in Riding, R.J. and Rayner, S.G. (Eds), International Perspectives on Individual Differences, Vol. 1, Cognitive Styles, Ablex, Stamford, CT, pp. 365-77.

Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour 113

ET 50,2

114

Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1998), Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour, Fulton, London. Sadler-Smith, E. (1998), Cognitive style: some human resource implications for managers, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 185-202. Schroder, H.M. (1994), Managerial competence and style, in Kirton, M.J. (Ed.), Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 91-113. Stevens, C.D. and Ash, R.A. (2001), Selecting employees for t: personality and preferred managerial style, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XIII No. 4, pp. 500-17. Symon, G., Cassell, C. and Dickson, R. (2000), Expanding our research and practice through innovative research methods, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 457-62. Tett, R.P., Guterman, H.A., Bleier, A. and Murphy, P.J. (2000), Development and content validation of a hyperdimensional taxonomy of managerial competence, Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 205-51. Whetten, D., Cameron, K. and Woods, M. (2000), Developing Management Skills for Europe, 2nd ed., Pearson Education, Harlow. Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. and Cox, P.W. (1977), Field-dependent and eld-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-64. About the authors Eva Cools, PhD earned a KU Leuven Masters degree in Pedagogical Sciences in 2000 and graduated as a Doctor in Applied Economics at Ghent University in September 2007. She works as a researcher in the People and Organisation Department at Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Belgium. Her current research activities focus on cognitive styles, team research, change management, and entrepreneurship. Eva Cools is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Eva.Cools@vlerick.be Herman Van Den Broeck, PhD, is partner of Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, where he is head of the People and Organisation Department. He is a professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Ghent University and teaches Educational Interaction and Communication at the Teacher Training department.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.