United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-414

December 1997

Cognitive Styles of Forest

Service Scientists and

Managers in the Pacific

Northwest

Andrew B. Carey
Author ANDREW B. CAREY is a principal research wildlife biologist, Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 3625 93d Ave. SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193. Thesis presented to the

graduate faculty, Central Washington University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree Master of Science, Organization Development.
Abstract Carey, Andrew B. 1997. Cognitive styles of Forest Service scientists and managers in

the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-414. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21

p.

Preferences of executives, foresters, and biologists of the Pacific Northwest Research

Station and executives, District Rangers, foresters, engineers, and biologists of the

Pacific Northwest Region, National Forest System (USDA Forest Service), were

compared for various thinking styles. Herrmann brain dominance profiles from 230

scientists and managers were drawn from Forest Service archives. Results showed

that employees used diverse thinking styles; 24 different profiles were found and

employees used 21 of 24 available adjectives to describe their own styles. All occupational groups preferred a combination of analytical and integrative thinking. Engineers

had the highest score for analytical thinking; District Rangers had the lowest. District

Rangers had the highest preference for feeling-based, interpersonal thinking; engineers

had the lowest. Research biologists and executives had low preference for detailed,

sequential thinking. Research executives had less preference for interpersonal thinking

than management executives. Implications for the agency are discussed.

Keywords: Cognition, thinking, personality, teams, management, Forest Service

scientists, managers.
Contents 1 Introduction

2 Literature Review

3 Development and Refinement of the HBDI

5 Applications

6 The HBDI and Other Measures of Personality

7 Validity of the HBDI

8 Method

9 Procedure

10 Sample

11 Results

11 Preferences for Thinking Styles

12 Four-Digit Profiles and Thinking Modes

13 Key Descriptors

13 Hypotheses

13 Discussion

14 Implications of Heterogeneity Within Groups

15 Other Sources of Conflict

15 Limitations

16 Acknowledgments

16 Literature Cited

21 Glossary
Introduction The National Forest System of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, manages 192

million acres (78 million ha) of land in 44 states (Gorte and Cody 1995). The mission of the Agency

changed from the protection of forests and rangelands prior to World War II to multiple use, with

an emphasis on timber production, after 1950. Changing societal values led to legislation in the

1960s and 1970s that required the National Forest System to incorporate interdisciplinary

teamwork and public involvement in planning. The resulting planning processes led to changes in

Forest Service culture that were accompanied by increased internal and external conflict (Kennedy

1988, Mohai and Jakes 1996). Ecosystem management was instituted as the natural resources

management policy for the National Forest System in 1992, and survey research (Bull 1994)

suggested that additional cultural change would be necessary to implement this policy.

Historically, the Research branch of the Forest Service produced information pertinent to the

management of Federal, state, and private lands but was not directly involved in land

management policy, planning, or implementation. Increased public scrutiny and criticism, legislative

requirements for incorporation of complex scientific concepts into land management planning, and

congressional challenges to management policies of the National Forest System, particularly in

the Pacific Northwest, have led to increased participation by research scientists in interdisciplinary

research teams and management of National Forests. Participation in management ranges from

consultations at the local level to leadership of large, interdisciplinary teams at the regional level.

The addition of scientists of various disciplines to interdisciplinary teams of managers has,

expectedly, led to further conflict within planning teams. Ties between these two branches of the

Forest Service also have been complicated by consolidation of support services such as personnel,

financial, and procurement management.

Lands managed by the National Forest System are grouped into nine geographic regions. The

Pacific Northwest Region (R-6) manages land in 19 National Forests in Oregon and

Washington that are further divided into 88 Ranger Districts. The R-6 Management Development

Group has implemented training aimed at developing the ability of employees to work in teams

of diverse people. A recent addition to this training has been the use of the Herrmann Brain

Dominance Instrument (HBDI) (Herrmann 1990, 1996), a self-administered questionnaire that

assesses individual preferences for cognitive (thinking) styles. Thinking styles include Aanalytical and logical, B-conservative and sequential, C-emotional and interpersonal. and Dintegrative and holistic. Four modes of thinking are derived from the HBDI: cerebral, limbic,

right-brain, and left-brain.

The Research branch of the Forest Service also is divided geographically. The Pacific Northwest

Research Station (PNW) conducts research in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Scientists from

PNW historically have not been involved in R-6 manager-development programs. In 1996,

however, the R-6 Management Development Group conducted an HBDI survey of PNW

scientists. Thus, an archival database of HBDI profiles of Forest Service scientists and

managers of various disciplines in the Pacific Northwest existed for the first time.

The purpose of this thesis was to determine if there is either (1) within- or among-group

homogeneity in cognitive preferences that could contribute to "group-think" or (2) within-group

homogeneity and between-group heterogeneity in cognitive preferences that could contribute to

conflict among occupational groups in the Forest Service

in the Pacific Northwest. Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in
Literature Review

when they are involved in cohesive groups, and striving for unanimity overrides motivation for

realistic appraisals of alternative courses of action (Janis 1983). Of particular interest were

differences between management and research, line and staff, and disciplines oriented toward

commodity production versus disciplines oriented toward environmental protection. Several a

priori hypotheses were developed based on the Herrmann (1996) experience with the HBDI:

• Scientists emphasize cerebral thinking.

• Engineers exhibit a preference for a single thinking style, A (rational).

• Management staff and line exhibit preference for left-brain thinking.

• Executives exhibit preference for cerebral thinking.

Because the database was archival and not based on random sampling, this study was

exploratory in both summary statistics and hypothesis testing; results cannot necessarily be

generalized and are not determinative of cause and effect.

"The assessment of personality is as old as humanity itself' (Aiken 1996:30). Descriptions of types

and temperament date from the 4th century B.C. Temperament refers to early developing, stable,

individual differences in behavioral style. Personality is a broader concept, containing

characteristics such as values, attitudes, and interests (Angleitner and Ostendorf 1994). In other

words, "temperament is the rootstock of personality" (Ornstein 1993). A complete definition of

personality includes affective, cognitive, behavioral, and mental variables. Affective assessment is

measurement of noncognitive characteristics, including temperament, emotion, interests,

attitudes, personal style, and other behaviors, traits, and processes. Cognitive assessment is

defined as the measurement of intellective processes, such as perception, memory, thinking,

judgment, reasoning, and problem solving (Aiken 1996). Learning and communicating technical

information are also intellective. Various instruments may assess cognition, affect, or the entire

personality.

Psychoanalytic theories (e.g., those of Freud, Jung, Adler, and Rogers) and various trait-factor

theories (those of Cattell and Eysenck) were the primary influences on modern instruments of

personality assessment (Aiken 1996). For example, the widely used Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (

MBTI), with four bipolar factors, was derived from Jungian theory (Myers and McCaulley 1985)

and later subjected to factor analysis (Harvey and others 1994, 1995). The number of

personality factors that have been proposed ranges from 3 to 16 (De Raad and others 1994).

Most systems of personality assessment (including MBTI, California Psychological Inventory,

Cattell's 16 Personality Factors, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) have been

challenged as not replicable or as contraventions of psychometric rules (Eysenck 1994). But there is

now an emerging consensus on five factors (the Big Five) underlying both temperament and

personality that are robust across groups, languages, and cultures (Angleitner and Osterndorf

1994, De Raad and others 1994, Halverson and others 1994). The factors are I-extraversion,

II-agreeableness, III-conscientiousness, IV-emotional stability, and V-intellect or openness

to experience (Goldberg and Rosolack 1994).
In this review, I first describe the development, application, and acceptance of the

HBDI, which is an assessment of preferences for various cognitive styles. Next, I relate

the HBDI to the Big Five, theories of learning and memory, and components of the

intelligence quotient (IQ). Because many American psychologists have a negative view

of personality types (Aiken 1996, Springer and Deutsch 1993), and because any useful

system of types is perhaps reductionistic, I will review the validity of the HBDI according

to the criteria of Messick (1995). Notwithstanding skepticism of some psychologists (e.

g., Hines 1985) about the theoretical validity of personality assessments, the practical

utility of types in training for interpersonal and interaction skills (and for personal

growth) is beyond doubt (Aiken 1996; Hequet 1995; Herrmann 1990, 1996; McClure

and Werther 1993; Myers and McCaulley 1985).

Development and The HBDI was developed by Ned Herrmann when he was head of manager edu--

Refinement of the HBDI cation for General Electric. Herrmann became intrigued by the concept of artistic

creativity in 1975 while serving as the president of the Stamford Art Association.

Together with the association's directors, Herrmann convened a panel on creativity. In

preparing for the panel, Herrmann encountered the literature on brain specialization,

including the writings of Broca (aphasia), Wernicke (aphasia), MacLean (triune brain),

Sperry (split-brain experiments), and Ornstein (electroenceph-alographic evidence of

specialization) (Herrmann 1990). Simultaneously, Mintzberg (1976) was stimulated by

brain lateralization studies (see Springer and Deutsch 1993 and Davidson and Hugdahl

1995 for reviews of lateralization research) and Ornstein's work (see reviews in Ornstein

1993 and Ornstein and Thompson 1984). Mintzberg proposed that hemisphericity (leftbrain vs. right-brain differentiation in cognition) was the reason for organizational

discrepancies at the policy level: the techniques of planning and analysis had little

influence on the function of top managers. Doktor and Bloom (1977) contrasted the

EEG alpha wave activity of executives and systems analysts and concluded that

systems analysts engaged primarily the left cerebral hemisphere and executives

engaged primarily the right cerebral hemisphere. Doktor and Bloom concluded that

anatomic differentiation of cognition is the root of lack of communication and

understanding between the two groups. Oltman and others (1979) provided further EEG

evidence of a relation between cognitive style and interhemispheric differentiation.

Zoccolotti and Oltman (1978) used visual field dependence techniques to provide

evidence of lateralization.

In 1976, Herrmann (1990, 1996) began conceptualizing an instrument based on leftbrain vs. right-brain preferences that could be used in the corporate workplace.

Eventually, the concept was expanded to four quadrants: left and right cerebral

hemispheres and left and right limbic system. Four broad thinking styles were

assigned to the quadrants: A-analyze (upper left), B-organize (lower left), Cpersonalize (lower right), and D-strategize (upper right). The result was the wholebrain model, presented as a metaphor, not a schema. Herrmann developed a 120-

question instrument, the HBDI, to assess preferences for the four styles; 85 questions

were lexical, asking for choices on words describing strength in work elements,

thinking style, and self-image (see table 1). The HBDI produces profile scores for each

of the four quadrants (A, B, C, D) and a four-digit profile based on preference (1), use

(2), and avoidance (3) of each of the four thinking styles (e.g., 1132). It is assumed

that each person must use all four thinking styles to function
fully, but that some styles are preferred to others and preferred styles are used more

frequently than others. Four percentage scores are provided for four modes (left, right,

cerebral, and limbic); the scores are complementary (sum to 100 percent) for left and

right and for cerebral and limbic modes. The HBDI also incorporates a simple, selfassessment introversion-extroversion scale.

In 1979, Herrmann and General Electric contracted with the WICAT Education Institution (a nonprofit research and development organization) for a series of studies to

determine the construct validity of several of Herrmann's instruments and methods. Six

studies were conducted by C. Victor Bunderson (later vice-president of Research

Management, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ) and James B. Olsen and

their students (Bunderson 1990). These studies addressed content-related validity,

criterion-related validity, face validity, construct validity, and test-retest reliability.

The first study combined a literature review, to develop a battery of measures against

which HBDI scores could be compared, and a preliminary examination of construct

validity. The second study was a factor analysis of 31 profile scores from 15 different

instruments administered to 143 people (52 General Electric employees and 91 students from Brigham Young University). This external construct validation was used to

understand and clarify the concepts and constructs related to the HBDI.

The third study was an internal construct validation based on 438 participants in

General Electric education workshops. An initial factor analysis with promax rotation of

91 item scores was used to construct 12 subscores that were subjected to a second

factor analysis, which yielded two factors and a third-order factor that became the basis

for refining the HBDI. Refinements included the construct of four brain (thinking style)

quadrants (A-upper left, B-lower left, C-lower right, and D-upper right) aligned

along two factors: A-C (analytical and rational vs. interpersonal and emotional) and B-D

(planning and organizing vs. innovative and integrative). The third-order factor was

bipolar left-right brain dominance.
Applications

The fourth study was a rescoring of study 2. This analysis resulted in a new scoring

protocol and an expansion of the HBDI to 120 items. The fifth study replicated the

second study, but used the new brain dominance profile scores. This study substantiated the findings of the earlier studies and showed that all new items functioned

properly. The same two bipolar factors and the same third-order factor were found

again.

The sixth study applied the 120-item HBDI to 7,989 subjects (two-thirds men, one-third

women) surveyed during 1984-86 in a variety of workshops, public presentations and

individual consultations by Herrmann. Factor analysis with promax rotation was

conducted by Kevin Ho for his doctoral dissertation at Brigham Young University and

reported by Bunderson (1990). Because the initial factor analysis dealt with items, factor

scores were developed for each subject for each factor. The 7,989 scores on each of

the factors were subjected to a new factor analysis. Again the A-C (explaining 35

percent of the variance) and the B-D factors (explaining 58 percent of the variance in

scores) were found; the two factors had a correlation of 0.37. Again, a third-order left--

right factor was found (accounting for 39 percent of the common variance). Nine scores

were developed from the 120 items. The HBDI was repeated 78 times on a large

sample of the same individuals. Test-retest reliabilities were 0.86-0.97 on the first eight

scores (left, right, A, B, C, D, cerebral, and limbic). The ninth score was introversionextroversion and had a test-retest reliability of 0.73. Bunderson (1990) concluded that

the overall pattern appeared to be stable over time but acknowledged that those

thinking style preferences could change over time, especially with conscious effort on

the part of the individual. He stated that there was generalizability across situations,

contexts, sex, and cultures but did not document the basis for the claim.

Suggested uses of the HBDI include better understanding of self and others, enhanced communication, enhanced teaching and learning, better management,

counseling, and building composite learning groups (Bunderson 1990). Herrmann (

1996) illustrates various applications of the HDBI and the whole-brain model. Wholebrain technology consists of some analytic procedures (1) to determine if

presentations or written materials are adequately addressing learning preferences

associated with different profiles (called proforma analyses), and (2) to design

teaching and technology transfer instruments to appeal to different learning styles.

The HBDI also is used in team building, either alone or with other training, such as

the managerial grid (Blake and Mouton 1985).

By 1989, more than 500,000 people had completed the HBDI in workshops and

consultations. Herrmann (1990) provided an overview of profiles in the workplace but

did not present quantitative data. New summaries of data on occupational norms (N =

113,000 profiles) were reported in 1996 (Herrmann 1996) but without measures of

dispersion. Few published reports on workplace applications seem to exist. This lack of

published information is not surprising given the proprietary nature of the HBDI and the

confidentiality of workplace interventions. Schkade and Potvin (1981) used the HBDI to

identify 12 clearly left-brained accounting students and 12 clearly right-brained art

students. The students were subjected to electroencephalograms. The results

demonstrated significant differences (p < 0.001) in active processing as indicated by

brain waves: accountants emphasized the left, artists, the right. Doktor and Bloom (

1977) also showed differences among occupational groups in hemispheric power

ratios. Coulson and Strickland (1983) compared 23 superintendents of

schools to 22 business executives. Superintendents had higher lefthemisphere
The HBDI and Other

Measures of Personality

scores; executives had higher right-hemisphere scores. Executives had dual primary cognitive

preferences for logical (A-quadrant) and creative (D-quadrant) thinking and avoided organization

(B-quadrant thinking). Superintendents had high scores on organization (B-quadrant) and

interpersonal (C-quadrant) thinking, but had low preference for conceptual (D-quadrant) thinking.

Simultaneously with the development of the HBDI for workplace application, there was an

explosion in the popular acceptance of the brain differentiation-cognitive style model. (e.g., Nadel

and others 1990). The metaphor is easily grasped, certainly much more easily understood by the

general public than either Jung's theory as extended by MBTI or Cattell's 16 Personality Factors.

Even the MBTI was related to hemispheric dominance (Shiflett 1989). The popularization of an

anatomical link to cognitive style caused concern on the part of neuropsychologists (Springer and

Deustch 1993) and among trainers (Hines 1985). Accumulating research revealed increased

complexity and less evidence for clearcut brain specialization and discrete cognitive styles (see

Davidson and Hugdahl 1995 for a synthesis). Still, the use of brain evolution and anatomy as a

metaphor for illustrating interpersonal differences is a powerful technique (Merlin 1991, Ornstein

1993, Sternberg 1989). Harrington (1995) reports that left-brain and right-brain metaphors have

powerful appeal and startling resonance with post-1950s culture in the United States. Materials

that accompany the HBDI provide verbal and visual metaphors that appeal to all major cognitive

styles. The utility of the HBDI in the workplace is receiving broad recognition and acclaim (

Gorovitz 1982, Nadel and others 1990). For example, Herrmann has been inducted into the HRD

Hall of Fame (Hequet 1995).

Evidence has been accumulating for a uniform structure of general personality (Croom and

others 1989, Halverson and others 1994, Schueger and Allen 1986). Elements of the Big Five

are related to the HBDI. Both have an introversion-extroversion factor. Agreeableness (Big Five

factor II) is related to C-quadrant (interpersonal, feeling-based) thinking styles;

conscientiousness (III) is related to B-quadrant (planned, detailed, and organized); emotional

stability (IV) is related to A-quadrant (rational, logical); and intellect or openness to experience is

related to D-quadrant (creative, innovative, intuitive) thinking.

There are three dimensions to intelligence, as measured by IQ (Hunt 1995): fluid intelligence,

crystallized intelligence, and visuospatial reasoning. These dimensions are related to thinking as a

process of creating a mental representation of the current problem, retrieving information that

appears relevant, and manipulating the representation to obtain a solution. Thus, B-quadrant

thinking can be thought of as using crystallized intelligence to bring to bear previously required

problem-solving skills to solve familiar problems. A-quadrant thinking can be thought of as using

previously acquired problem-solving skills and fluid intelligence to solve new and unusual problems (through analysis of the new problem), and D-quadrant thinking can be thought of as using

visuospatial intelligence to develop new and creative solutions to old or new problems. Whereas IQ

is a measure of capacity, the HBDI measures neither aptitude nor competence, only

preference. Payne and Evans (1985, 1986) examined 40 female occupational therapy students

and found some strong relations between HBDI right cerebral and total cerebral scores and scores

on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). There was a modest relation between limbic scores and

SAT M-scores. There was no relation between laterality and grade point average and an inverse

relation between left limbic scores and grade point average. Examination of 98 Ph.D.

candidates found a moderate relation between left cerebral and total cerebral HBDI
Validity of the HBDI

scores and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores, GRE-Q and GRE-T (Payne 1988).

Limbic scores were inversely related to GRE; left-hemisphere dominance was positively related, and right-hemisphere dominance was negatively related, to GRE scores.

No emotional component has been identified in IQ or other academic aptitude tests;

however, the HBDI measures preference for thinking related to emotions and

interpersonal relations.

Two theories of learning, behaviorism and cognitivism, have theoretical and empirical

support (Petri and Mishkin 1994). According to Petri and Mishkin, behaviorism regards

learning as automatic, beyond awareness, and based on reinforcement, whereas

cognitivism suggests individuals can acquire and store information that can be combined with new information to lead to new behavior (novel solutions). Petri and Mishkin

proposed a two-system model with one system storing memories (cognitive) and the

other developing habits (noncognitive). Memory and habit are associated with the limbic

system. Presumably the formation of novel solutions depends on analyzing and

integrating memories and synthesizing new solutions in the cerebrum. Thinking and

learning, however, are complex and involve the whole brain (see the review of adaptive

resonance theory by Grossberg 1995). The HBDI is fully compatible with current theory

of learning.

Personality can be thought of as the result of processing temperament through socialization and acculturation. Thus, thinking styles should reflect cultural dimensions. Ray (

1996) describes three cultural streams in the United States. The traditionalists are

conservative and exemplify B-quadrant thinking. Modernists, with a belief in technology

and rational thought, exemplify A-quadrant thinking. The emerging integral culture is

characterized by humanism, spirituality, and creativity (a combination of C- and Dquadrant thinking). Thus, thinking style can be thought of as embedded in personality

along with intelligence, affect, and sociopolitical values (Angleitner and Ostendorf 1994,

De Raad and others 1994, Goldberg and Rosolack 1994).

Messick (1995) suggests that current concepts of validity of psychological assessments are inadequate and proposes six standards for all educational and psychological

measurement: content, substance, structure, generalizability, external relevance, and

consequence. Content includes content relevance, representativeness, and technical

quality. Structure includes fidelity of scoring to the knowledge, skills, ability, and other

characteristics assessed by the instrument. Generalizability is across populations,

settings, and tasks. Content, structure, and generalizability were evaluated by

Bunderson (1990) and found to be sufficient. Generalizability is reported by Herrmann (

1990, 1996) across cultures and occupations. External relevance includes convergent

and discriminant evidence from multitrait-multimethod comparisons and applied utility.

Bunderson conducted such multitrait-multimethod comparison and I, in this review, have

related the HBDI to the Big Five and other types of personality assessment. Both

examinations found high external relevance. Herrmann and Bunderson both discuss

the applied utility of the HBDI. Hequet (1995) reports widespread acceptance of the

utility of the HBDI for training. Consequence includes the value implications of score

interpretation as a basis for action and actual and potential consequences of test use,

especially in regard to bias, fairness, and distributive justice. Herrmann is adamant that

score interpretation should be value free. The utility of the HBDI lies in its value for

personal insight and for appreciating the value of diversity. The instrument is designed

to enhance communication and understanding and is not promoted for use in selecting

applicants for jobs. The instrument does not purport to measure ability or competence,

only preference.
Method

The substance of an assessment refers to its theoretical rationale. Herrmann (1990,

1996) conceived the HBDI after a review of brain evolution (sensu McLean 1985) and

lateralization studies. A number of studies relate brain dominance, occupation, and

thinking style to electroencephalographic activity (e.g., Doktor and Bloom 1977, Oltman

and others 1979, Schkade and Potvin 1981). But Herrmann states that his model is a

metaphor, not an exact representation of function as it relates to anatomic

specialization. The metaphor is not contradicted by the most recent research on brain

asymmetry and lateralization of function (see papers in Davidson and Hugdahl 1995 for

a review) as suggested by Springer and Deutsch (1993). The idea that the brain is

organized into distinct areas of relative functional autonomy and specialization is a

basic principle of cognitive neuroscience. However, the brain realizes its functions by

the conjoint activation of several component structures, each performing specific

operations. Psychological and cognitive functions are no longer viewed as unitary

processes but as compositions of subprocesses organized in specific ways (Sergent

1995). The claim that the cerebral hemispheres have different visual perceptual

strengths is no longer controversial (Brown and Kosslyn 1995). But the exact relation

between brain asymmetry and side differences in language and visuospatial skills is

unknown (Galaburda 1995). Even simple tasks for visual information processing involve a number of information-processing subsystems and interactions among subsystems; it is impossible to indicate which cerebral hemisphere is superior for an entire

task (Hellige 1995). Face recognition alone involves both left and right hemispheres (

Sergent 1995). Hellige suggests the right hemisphere is superior to the left hemisphere

for the processing of global events; the left hemisphere is superior for local events. The

left hemisphere is specialized for language processing, but each hemisphere subserves

multiple listening functions (Hugdahl 1995a). Fundamental asymmetry controls functions

related to emotion; left and right hemispheres are specialized for approach and

withdrawal processes, respectively (Davidson 1995). Associative learning conditioned to

emotionally relevant stimuli takes place in the right hemisphere with the amygdala

important in fear conditioning. Limbic structures are clearly involved in regulation of

emotional affect, with the right cortex regulating autonomic reactivity (Hugdahl 1995b).

The most fundamental division of corticolimbic architecture is not left-right, however, but

dorsal-ventral. There are complex relations among vertically integrated circuits, and

interpreting their function in relation to human emotional behavior is a difficult and

controversial process (Liotti and Tucker 1995). Thus, Herrmann's whole-brain model

and the nomenclature of the HBDI are best viewed as a metaphor, and as a metaphor

they represent reasonably well Sergent's view of cerebral lateralization of functions, in

which the two hemispheres interact in distributing and acquiring their respective

competencies with close interdependence, such that the modularity of the brain is

embedded within a highly interactive central nervous system. The metaphor also

reflects Davidson's and Hugdahl's respective views on the influence of cerebral

asymmetry and cerebral-limbic differentiation in regulation of emotion and affective

style.

This was an archival study. The R-6 Management Development Group and Mark

Wilcox (a consultant) surveyed employees of R-6 and PNW during 1992-96 with the

HBDI (Herrmann 1990, 1996) in conjunction with managerial grid training and teambuilding exercises. The HBDI is a proprietary, copyrighted survey instrument; the

details of the instrument were reported by Herrmann. The HBDI consists of 120

questions including name, sex, educational focus, occupation, handedness, best and

worst academic subjects, work elements, key descriptors of self, hobbies, diurnal

energy level, motion sickness, choices among personally most descriptive adjective
Procedure

pairs, an introversion-extroversion scale, and a Likert scale (strongly agree-strongly

disagree) for 20 statements about cognitive style. Summary scores and items for the

HBDI were obtained from the archives.

I obtained a list of names of individuals and their occupations (as the individuals reported them) from Wilcox (the consultant) through the auspices of Charles DeRidder,

Director of Management Development, R-6. DeRidder also provided the General

Service (GS) grade levels (salary ranges that indicate occupational maturity as well)

for the individuals. Only GS-11s and above were considered because GS-11 is the

minimum grade for scientists and is the beginning grade for mid-level management.

I reviewed the list and concluded that adequate sample sizes existed for the following

occupational groups: research executives (Station Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant

Directors, and Program Managers with science backgrounds); management executives

(Forest Supervisors and their deputies with technical backgrounds); management

frontline (District Rangers); research foresters (foresters, silviculturists,

pathologists, economists, forest product specialists, and forest inventory specialists);

research biologists (including wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, forest ecologists,

and botanists); management foresters; management engineers; and

management biologists. Only one level of line (executive) exists in PNW. Front line

District Rangers were grouped separately from executive line in R-6 not only because

of functional differences, but also because District Rangers have long been considered

barometers of Forest Service culture (Bultena and Hendee 1972, Carroll and others

1996, Sabatier and others 1996, Twight and Lyden 1989). Disciplinary groupings for

staff were based on education (forestry departments and colleges vs. other

departments and colleges) that reflected orientation (commodity vs. amenity or

environmental values). If ambiguity existed in the case of scientists, research program

affiliation (for example, production vs. ecosystem processes) was used to resolve the

ambiguity. Ambiguities in occupations of management staff were resolved by not

selecting ambiguous cases. The commodity versus amenity (or production vs. process)

groupings were chosen because these groups are most often contrasted in the

literature (Kennedy 1985, 1988; Miller and Gale 1986; Mohai and Jakes 1996;

Shannon 1992; Tipple and Wellman 1989; Twight and Lyden 1989), and sample sizes

were inadequate for contrasting all the self-reported occupations or subgroups such as

wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, and botanists.

I returned a list of 230 Forest Service employees to DeRidder and Wilcox. Wilcox

then provided me with data in the form of anonymous individual records grouped by

occupational category. Data included demographic variables: sex, date of birth, and

ethnicity. I converted dates of birth to age as of December 1996. Data calculated from

the HBDI by Wilcox and provided to me included:

• A four-digit profile (e.g., 1132) composed of rankings (1 = prefer, 2 = use, 3 = avoid)

based on self-report scores in the sequence of the four quadrants (A-analyze, Borganize, C-personalize, D-strategize).

• Numerical scores for each of the four quadrants.

• Percentage scores for modes of thinking (left, right, cerebral, limbic).

• Self-reported key personal descriptors.

Summary statistics were calculated by occupational categories for all variables.

Summary statistics included means, standard errors, 95-percent confidence

intervals,
Sample

skewness, and kurtosis. Statistical significance of skewness and kurtosis were tested

with a t-test (a = 0.05) comparing the statistic to zero with the standard error defined as

(6/n)1/2for skewness and (24/n)1/2for kurtosis (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). I used Levene's

statistic to test for homogeneity of variances of groups to be examined with analysis of

variance (ANOVA) or multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA). I used one-way ANOVA to test

for differences in age among occupations and Tukey's HSD to determine how

occupations differed. I used MANOVA, Box's M-Test of equality of covariance matrices,

and profile plots of estimated marginal means to test for differences among occupations

in scores on the four HBDI quadrants. Because homogeneity of variances, equality of

covariance matrices, and kurtosis were significant or near significant for a number of

comparisons, I repeated the comparisons by using one-way ANOVA with Waller-Duncan

comparisons (a = 0.05) and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA. I used chi-square

goodness-of-fit tests to test for differences among occupations in preferences for the four

modes of thinking and key descriptors. Sample sizes were small, however, for the

number of categories.

Both PNW and R-6 were reducing markedly the size of their workforces during 1992-

96; in addition, there was turnover in many jobs. Thus, precise data on the population

from which the samples were drawn were not available. In 1996, PNW employed about

120 scientists during the survey period; 76 percent were male and ages ranged from 32

to 68 years. Fifty-nine responded to the HBDI survey (table 2). The sample of research

executives was an inventory. About 50 percent of scientists were sampled (all were sent

surveys by the Management Development Group). In 1996, R-6 employed 1,805

professionals (GS-5 and above); 70 percent were male and 62 percent were Caucasian.

About 65 percent of management executives and 35 percent of District Rangers were

sampled. The sample of technical staff above the GS grade of 11 was greater than 10

percent. Samples appeared representative of the populations from which they were

drawn. Staff samples were not random samples; however, unknown biases could exist

in self-selection and supervisor selection for training. Not all respondents answered

questions about ethnicity and age; sample sizes for these categories are 15 percent

lower than total sample size.
Results

Preferences

for Thinking

Styles

Forest Service archives contained 230 HBDI profiles that could be assigned to eight

occupational categories of interest. Most individuals in each occupational category were

middle-aged white males, representative of PNW and R-6. Executives were significantly

older than front line, staff, and scientists (Levene's statistic for homogeneity of

variances = 1.86, of = 7 194; p = 0.08; F = 6.66; df = 7 194; p < 0.01). Categories for

biologists and frontline (District Ranger) had more female members (30-32 percent)

than categories for executives, foresters, and engineers (0-24 percent female members)

.

Overall, the sample showed tendencies toward A-quadrant, analytical thinking and Dquadrant, integrative thinking (table 3). I found no significant skewness, but 10 of 32

distributions were platykurtic and one was leptokurtic (engineers' low scores for

emotional thinking styles). Levene's test showed equality of error variances, with Fs = 0.

6-1.6, df = 7, and ps =0.13-0.75. Box's M-test, however, suggested heterogeneity in

covariance matrices (F = 1.34, df = 70, 15832, p = 0.03). Therefore I used Pillai's trace

test statistic and found significant differences in preferences among occupations (V = 0.

195; F = 1.624; df= 28, 888; p = 0.02). Profile plots (fig. 1) showed that engineers had

significantly higher preference for A-quadrant (rational) thinking than did other

occupations. Research executives and research biologists had low preferences for Bquadrant (detailed) thinking. District Rangers had higher preferences for C-quadrant (

interpersonal) thinking styles than did other occupations; engineers had the lowest

preference for C-quadrant thinking. Engineers also had the lowest preference for Dquadrant (integrative) thinking. One-way ANOVA confirmed significant differences

among occupations in preferences for A-quadrant thinking (F = 2.85, of = 7, 222, p < 0.

01) and C-quadrant thinking (F = 2.78, df= 7, 222, p < 0.01). Kruskal-Wallis

nonparametric ANOVA also confirmed occupational differences for A-quadrant (x2 = 18.

2, df= 7, p = 0.01) and C-quadrant (x2 = 19.0, df = 7, p < 0.01) thinking. Waller-Duncan

comparisons confirmed that engineers had higher preferences for

Table 3-Mean quadrant (A, B,C,D) scores (with standard errors) for

thinking styles and mean percentage preferences (with standard errors)

for thinking modes for 8 occupational groups in the Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest, 1992-96
Four-Digit Profiles and

Thinking Modes

Figure 1-Profile plots of mean scores of Forest Service research (R.) and management (M.)

executives (exec.), line, foresters (for.), engineers (engr.), and biologists (biol.) on the four

quadrants of the Herrmann whole brain model.

A-quadrant thinking than did other occupations, except research executives, who were

intermediate between the two groups. Waller-Duncan comparisons also confirmed that

District Rangers had the highest average preference for C-quadrant thinking and

indicated that engineers, research foresters, research executives, and management

biologists had lower preferences than research biologists, management executives, and

management foresters for C-quadrant thinking. Again, engineers had the lowest

preference for D-quadrant thinking. Management executives had significantly higher

preferences for D-quadrant thinking that other occupational groups in Waller-Duncan

comparisons; but the overall test for occupational differences in preference for Dquadrant thinking was not significant (F = 1.5; df = 7, 22; p = 0.17). Mean ranks in the

Kruskal-Wallis test exhibited the same patterns of occupational preferences for thinking

styles.

Despite the common average preference for A- and D-quadrant thinking in all groups,

there was considerable variation within groups as indicated by platykurtic distributions.

Coefficients of variation were 15-44 percent and averaged 31 ± 1 percent (M ± SE),

seemingly invariant to sample size.

The HBDI derived 24 different four-digit profiles from the 230 sets of scores: 2.6 percent of respondents were quadruple dominant (preferences in all four quadrants); 4.8

percent were triple dominant with an avoidance of D-quadrant thinking; 0.4 percent

were triple dominant with avoidance of A-quadrant thinking; and 5.7 percent were

triple dominant with use of A-quadrant thinking. Only two people (0.9 percent) had

preferences for a single thinking style; 16.4 percent of the people avoided one style or

another. A large majority (85.6 percent) of respondents were double dominant. The

large number of profiles precluded statistical comparisons among occupations. Cases,

however, tended to group at profiles representing the four thinking modes:
Key Descriptors

Hypotheses

Discussion

1221-cerebral, 37 percent; 2211-right-brain, 17 percent; 1122-left-brain, 12 percent;

and 2112-2 percent, limbic. The HBDI calculates percentage preferences for the

opposing modes, left-right and cerebral-limbic. There were no significant differences

among occupations for left and right mode preferences (x2 = 5.3, df = 7, p = 0.62): 123

of 230 respondents (53 percent) showed left-mode preference. All occupational groups

and 83 percent of respondents reported preferences for the cerebral mode over the

limbic mode. But 48 percent of District Rangers showed preferences for the limbic

mode; this percentage was not sufficient to result in a significant difference in the

distribution of cerebral-limbic preferences across occupations (x2 = 11.8, df=7, p=0.11).

In total, respondents chose 21 of the 24 available key descriptors in the HBDI to describe

themselves. Seven descriptors were chosen by 72 percent of the respondents: holistic (

34 percent), logical (34 percent), synthesizer (28 percent), intuitive (26 percent), rational (

17 percent), analytic (15 percent), and creative (11 percent). This selection was

statistically significant (x2 = 216, df= 154, p < 0.01). The distribution of respondents

over the set of key descriptors confirms through simple self-description the preference

for the logical (A-quadrant) and holistic (D-quadrant) thinking styles and the cerebral

mode of thinking that was indicated by the summary scores for the 120 HBDI questions.

My findings support the hypotheses that scientists and executives prefer the cerebral

mode of thinking. The statistical results reject the hypotheses that management staff and

line prefer the left-brain mode of thinking and that engineers prefer a single style (Aquadrant) of thinking. Although engineers scored significantly higher on A-quadrant

thinking than other groups, their composite profile was actually triple dominant (A-BD). The HBDI uses a cutoff of a score of 67 for a thinking style to distinguish preferred

thinking styles from used thinking styles. All but one of the 95-percent confidence

intervals of the mean scores (composite profile) of the eight occupational groups on the

four quadrants exceeded or encompassed 67. Thus, none of the occupations, except

engineering, differed significantly from a composite quadruple dominant profile.

Engineers, in composite, were triple dominant, with a score of 52 (a "use" rating), with a

95-percent confidence interval of 43-60, on C-quadrant.

In summary, both research and management professionals in the Pacific Northwest see

themselves as logical and holistic in their thinking. Engineers, however, tend toward

the logical and analytical. District Rangers add an emphasis on interpersonal, feelingbased thinking. Despite these commonalities, there exists substantial heterogeneity in

cognitive style within occupational groups and, thus, within the respective branches of

the Forest Service.

The diversity of preferences for thinking styles suggested that homogeneity of cognitive

preferences within groups is not a risk factor for groupthink in the Forest Service in the

Pacific Northwest. There is homogeneity among groups, but the group-level

preferences emphasized both analytical and integrative thinking. This cerebral mode of

thinking would be the least likely to contribute to groupthink. Groupthink involves

developing a number of shared illusions (invulnerability, inherent morality, and unanimity) that lead to incomplete surveys of alternatives, failure to examine risks, and selfcensorship (Janis 1983). Current Forest Service culture and cognitive preferences value

analysis and critical thinking, integration of interdisciplinary and public input into
Implications of

Heterogeneity Within

Groups

broad arrays of alternatives, and a public and interdisciplinary process. Groups that

emphasize B-quadrant thinking are more likely to be dogmatic. Those that emphasize

C-quadrant thinking are more likely to be striving of unanimity. Emphasis on analysis

without integration could lead to consideration of a narrow range of alternatives.

Emphasis on integration without careful analysis of facts and logic can lead to poor

decisions.

These results suggest the emphasis on interdisciplinary planning and public involvement has changed cognitive and cultural styles in the Forest Service. The Forest

Service has a history of groupthink; indeed, forest management legislation in the 1960s

and 1970s was a confrontation of this groupthink (Kennedy 1988). Historically, the

Forest Service was conservative, hierarchical, dominated by white male foresters, and

demanding of conformity (Bultena and Hendee 1972, Miller and Gale 1986, Tipple

and Wellman 1989, Twight and Lyden 1989). Various natural resources professions

were homogeneous subcultures (Kennedy 1985, Miller and Gale 1986). Demographics, disciplinary composition, and culture of the Forest Service (and associated

professions) have changed markedly (Carroll and others 1996, Ehrenreich 1996, Mohai

and Jakes 1996, Sabatier and others 1996). The Forest Service and the professional

organizations to which Forest Service employees belong, however, continue to discuss

the need to avoid narrow thinking, to emphasize interdisciplinary teamwork, and to

respond to changing social concerns (e.g., Brown and others 1994, Bull 1994, Carrier

1995, Carroll and others 1996, Kessler 1995, Marcin 1995, Munson-McGee and

Thompson 1995, Shannon 1992, Sparrowe 1995).

I had expected to find more homogeneity within groups, especially within scientist

groups, than I did, because of strong selection pressures for analytical thinking through

college, graduate school, and the practice of research. I expected manager groups to

show more heterogeneity than scientist groups, because managers generally have had

less graduate school. But heterogeneity was similar among all the groups. It is unlikely

that this heterogeneity was due to age differences as ages were similar and individual

personality is relatively stable after 30 years of age (Costa and McCrae 1994). All the

groups had stronger preferences for analytical and integrative thinking than for limbic

mode thinking. Scientists are analytic in defining problems and processing data and

integrative in discussing results and contributing to theory. Managers in the Forest

Service must use both analytical and integrative thinking to resolve conflicts within

interdisciplinary teams and among demands for natural resources. No group showed

avoidance for planning or interpersonal relations. Ability to use B-quadrant thinking

style is prerequisite to success in a large machine bureaucracy like the Forest Service.

Feeling-based thinking is important to most people's personal life and for harmony in

the workplace. The District Rangers, the frontline managers, showed more preference

for interpersonal thinking styles than did other occupations. District Ranger profiles

suggested this group of managers is indeed moving toward the 9-9 management style (

Blake and Mouton 1985) that is effective in managing teams and is promoted by R-6

management training. Research executives, who may receive little management

development training, exhibited preferences (on the whole) more typical of directive

management styles. Thus, the heterogeneity in thinking styles within groups and

homogeneity among groups may reflect (1) reconciliation of personal style with

organizational needs, (2) organizational tolerance of diversity in the workforce, (3)

management training programs, and (4) rapid changes in U.S. culture during the

maturation of the age-group of employees sampled (Ray 1996).
Other Sources of

Conflict

Limitations

Heterogeneity can contribute to the level of interpersonal conflict in the workplace

and to conflict within teams, especially when teams are small (e.g., fewer than 10

people) or when large teams have little time to form. Conflict would be most likely

to result from lack of communication when interpersonal differences are not

recognized as a matter of personal style. Programs are in place in the Forest Service

to educate employees about cultural diversity, differences in personality, and

differences in thinking styles. Not all employees, however, receive all training.

Training in differences in cognitive style and effective communication would be

important as part of team formation. Similarly, techniques such as appreciative

inquiry (Bushe and Coetzer 1995) and group sensitivity training (Faith and others

1995) could be effective when used as part of the formation of large or small

interdisciplinary teams. This approach is currently used in the R-6 Management

Development training program. The results of this study suggest that both research

and management employees could benefit from participation in the program.

Organizational climate and conflict in the workplace are a result of more than individual and group preferences for thinking styles. Although Forest Service culture

changed markedly during the 1980s and 1990s, public perception of the Agency and

its activities did not change significantly (Sabatier and others 1996). Forest Service

line officers see the Agency as highly committed to addressing environmental and

amenity issues, but staff employees see these issues as more serious than line officers

do and do not believe the Agency is committed to addressing them. A majority (70

percent) of both management and staff believe the Forest Service should place more

emphasis on ecological issues, and 60 to 70 percent believe the Forest Service

places undue emphasis on timber programs (Mohai and Jakes 1996). Both groups felt

that increased public involvement and increased emphasis on noncommodity issues

were positive changes. Recently increased political pressure on the Agency was

regarded negatively. Impediments to future constructive change were, in order of

prevalence, Congress and competing interest groups, lack of effective leadership,

loss of public support, insufficient funding, and on-the-job stress.

Thus, internal dissension in the Forest Service is, in part, a result of say-do discrepancies between the legal mandates and policies of the Forest Service and congressional line-item appropriations for, and the actions of, the Agency. Such

discrepancies may be particularly important in natural resources management

bureaucracies because these organizations rely on the professional skills of their

frontline employees. Professional affiliation often is greater than employer affiliation

(Kennedy 1985, Miller and Gale 1986). These problems can be addressed only by

effective leadership that responds to both the needs and the changing culture of

society and the needs and diversity of organization members (DePree 1989, Miller

1996, Mintzberg 1975).

The target population of the study was PNW and R-6, mid-career and senior professional employees in natural resources fields. The result cannot be extrapolated

beyond the Pacific Northwest. Data were archival and from a self-administered survey

instrument. People may respond to such questionnaires by giving answers that (1)

they think are socially desirable, (2) are indicative of how they would like to be

rather than how they are, or (3) are deliberately inaccurate. All such instruments

suffer from problems in interpretation. The archives were not developed through

random sampling. Even though samples of executive groups were near inventories

and samples of District Rangers and scientists were 35 to 60 percent of the target

population, unknown biases could exist in less than complete samples. The reasons

why some scientists did not respond to the survey are unknown, as are the reasons for

some
Acknowledgments

Literature Cited

employees participating in training and others not participating. Given rapid changes

in the Forest Service workforce in the Pacific Northwest in the recent past, even if

the samples had been random, it would be impossible to determine if they were

representative of the current workforce. Sample sizes in any particular category were

small. Lumping of occupations into categories may have obscured differences among

occupations and may have led to false conclusions about intragroup diversity in

thinking styles. Small sample sizes precluded many of the possible analyses of inter

est.

I thank all those who played important roles in helping me in the MSOD Program

at Central Washington University. First, and foremost, I thank my wife, Regine, for

her support, encouragement, patience, and understanding. I thank Hermann

Gucinski, Program Manager, Ecosystem Processes Research Program, and the

Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, for support. Heartfelt

thanks to Mary Jane Bergener, Elizabeth Schuler, and Sue Triplett in data

collection. I especially thank Chuck DeRidder, leader of the Pacific Northwest

Region Management Development Group, for his support and assistance in this

research and for the training that he provides; Chuck introduced me, and many

others in the Forest Service, to the concepts of organizational development. I thank

Mark Wilcox, The Brain Connection, for his participation and cooperation; I could

not have done it without him. Thanks to my committee: Steve Schepman, Anthony

Stahelski, and Jim Eubanks. And finally, thanks to my classmates, especially Phyllis

Weddington, Kim Moriyama, David Brandes, Chris Wiprud, and Tom Hoffmann,

who enriched the learning process.

Aiken, L.R. 1996. Personality assessment methods and practices. 2d rev. ed.

Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Angleitner, A.; Ostendorf, F. 1994. Temperament and the big five factors of

personality. In: Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.; Martin, R.P., eds.

The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to

adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 65-90.

Blake, R.R.; Mouton, J.S. 1985. The managerial grid III. 3d ed. Houston,

TX: Gulf.

Brown, H.D.; Kosslyn, S.M. 1995. Hemispheric differences in visual object

processing: structural versus allocation theories. In: Davidson, R.J.;

Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 77-97.

Brown, T.L.; Enck, J.W.; Decker, D.J.; Franklin, T.M. 1994. The Wildlife

Society: its members evaluate its services. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22(

3): 503-510.

Bull, J.R. 1994. Implementing a new natural resource management policy:

organizational culture and individual behavioral skills requirements.

Ellensburg, WA: Central Washington University. M.S. thesis.

Bultena, G.; Hendee, J.C. 1972. Forester views of interest group positions

on forest policy. Journal of Forestry. 70(6): 337-342.

Bunderson, C.V. 1990. The validity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance

Instrument. In: Herrmann, N., ed. The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC:

Brain Books: 337-425.

Bushe, G.R.; Coetzer, G. 1995. Appreciative inquiry as a team-development

intervention: a controlled experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science. 31(1): 13-30.
Carrier, W.D. 1995. The Nero syndrome in the wildlife profession. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 23(4): 676-679.

Carroll, F.O.; Freemuth, J.; Alm, L. 1996. Women forest rangers: revisiting

Kaufman's "The Forest Ranger." Journal of Forestry. 94(1): 38-41.

Costa, P.T., Jr.; McCrae, R.R. 1994. Stability and change in personality from

adolescence through adulthood. In: Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.;

Martin, R.P., eds. The developing structure of temperament and personality

from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 139-155.

Coulson, L.T.; Strickland, A.G. 1983. The minds at the top: an analysis of the

thinking style preferences of superintendents of schools and chief executive

officers. Journal of Creative Behavior. 17: 163-174.

Croom, W.C.; Wallace, J.M.; Schueger, J.M. 1989. Jungian types from Cattelian

variables. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research. 9(1): 35-40.

Davidson, R.J. 1995. Cerebral asymmetry, emotion, and affective style. In:

Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press: 361-387.

Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K.H., eds. 1995. Brain aysmmetry. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

DePree, M. 1989. Leadership is an art. New York: Dell.

De Raad, B.; Hendriks, A.A.J.; Hofstee, W.K.B. 1994. The big five: a tip of the

iceberg of individual differences. In: Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.;

Martin, R.P., eds. The developing structure of temperament and personality

from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 91-109.

Doktor, R.; Bloom, D.M. 1977. Selective lateralization of cognitive style related

to occupation as determined by EEG alpha symmetry. Psychophysiology. 14(

4): 385-387.

Ehrenreich, D.L. 1996. Documenting progress: the women in natural resources

journal. Journal of Forestry. 94(11): 8-12.

Eysenck, H.J. 1994. The big five or giant three: criteria for a paradigm. In:

Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.; Martin, R.P., eds. Structure of

temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum: 37-51.

Faith, M.S.; Wong, F.Y.; Carpenter, K.M. 1995. Group sensitivity training:

update, meta-analysis, and recommendations. Journal of Counseling

Psychology. 42(3): 390-399.

Galaburda, A.M. 1995. Anatomic basis of cerebral dominance. In: Davidson, R.

J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 51-73.

Goldberg, L.R.; Rosolack, T.K. 1994. The big five factor structure as an

integrative framework: an empirical comparison with Eysenck's P-E-N

model. In: Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.; Martin, R.P., eds. The

developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to

adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 7-35.

Gorovitz, E.S. 1982. The creative brain II: a revisit with Ned Herrmann. Training

and Development Journal. 36(12): 74-88.
Gorte, R.W.; Cody, B.A. 1995. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management:

history and analysis of merger proposals. Congressional Research Service Report

for Report for Congress 95-117 ENR. Washington, DC: Committee for the

National Institute for the Environment.

Grossberg, S. 1995. The attentive brain. American Scientist. 83(5): 438-449.

Halverson, C.F., Jr.; Kohnstamm, G.A.; Martin, R.P., eds. 1994. The developing

structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Harrington, A. 1995. Unfinished business: models of laterality in the nineteenth

century. In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press: 3-27.

Harvey, R.J.; Murray, W.D.; Markham, S.E. 1994. Evaluation of three short-form

versions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment.

63(1): 181-184.

Harvey, R.J.; Murray, W.D.; Stamoulis, D.T. 1995. Unresolved issues in the

dimensionality of the Myers-Brigss Type Indicator. Education and Psychological

Measurement. 55(4): 535-544.

Hellige, J.B. 1995. Hemispheric asymmetry for components of visual information

processing. In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press: 99-121.

Hequet, M. 1995. The HRD hall of fame. Training. 32(2): 67-72.

Herrmann, N. 1990. The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books.

Herrmann, N. 1996. The whole brain business book. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hines, T. 1985. Left brain, right brain: Who's on first? Training and Development

Journal. 39(11): 32-34.

Hugdahl, K. 1995a. Classical conditioning and implicit learning: the right

hemisphere hypothesis. In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 235-267.

Hugdahl, K. 1995b. Dichotic listening: probing temporal lobe functional integrity.

In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press: 123-156.

Hunt, E. 1995. The role of intelligence in modern society. American Scientist. 83(4):

356-368.

Janis, I. 1983. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 2d

ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Kennedy, J.J. 1985. Viewing wildlife managers as a unique professional culture.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13(4): 571-579.

Kennedy, J.J. 1988. Legislative confrontation of groupthink in U.S. natural resource

agencies. Environmental Conservation. 15(2): 123-128.

Kessler, W.B. 1995. Wanted: a new generation of environmental problem solvers.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(4): 594-599.
Liotti, M.; Tucker, D.M. 1995. Emotions in asymmetric corticolimbic networks.

In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press: 389-423.

Marcin, T.C. 1995. Integrating social sciences in forest ecosystem management

research. Journal of Forestry. 93(1): 29-33.

McClure, L.; Werther, W.B., Jr. 1993. Personality variables in management

development interventions. Journal of Management Development. 12(3): 39-

47.

McLean, P.D. 1985. Brain evolution relating to family, play, and the separation

call. Archives of General Psychiatry. 42(April): 405-417.

Merlin, D. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of

culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Messick, S. 1995. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences

from person's responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score

meaning. American Psychologist. 50(9): 741-749.

Miller, C. 1996. A cautionary tale: reflections on reinventing the Forest Service.

Journal of Forestry. 94(1): 6-10.

Miller, M.L.; Gale, R.P. 1986. Professional styles of Federal forest and marine

fisheries resources managers. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 6(2): 141-148.

Mintzberg, H. 1975. The manager's job: folklore and fact. Harvard Business

Review. 53(4): 49-61.

Mintzberg, H. 1976. Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard

Business Review. 54(4): 49-58.

Mohai, P.; Jakes, P. 1996. The Forest Service in the 1990s: Is it headed in the

right direction? Journal of Forestry. 94(1): 31-37.

Munson-McGee, M.L.; Thompson, B.C. 1995. Resource management: a

challenging profession in a changing world. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(4):

564-567.

Myers, I.B.; McCaulley, M.H. 1985. Manual: a guide to the development and us

e of

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Nadel, L.; Haims, J.; Stempson, R. 1990. Sixth sense: the whole brain book of

intuition, hunches, gut feelings, and their place in everyday life. 1st ed. New

York: Prentice Hall Press.

Oltman, P.K.; Semple, C.; Goldstein, L. 1979. Cognitive style and

interhemispheric differentiation in the EEG. Neuropsychologia. 17: 699-702.

Ornstein, R. 1993. The roots of self: unraveling the mystery of who we are. New

York: Harper Collins.

Ornstein, R.; Thompson, R.F. 1984. The amazing brain. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Payne, D.A. 1988. Brain dominance cognitive style and the graduate record

examination aptitude test. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 48:

175-179.
Payne, D.A.; Evans, K.A. 1985. The relationship of laterality to academic

aptitude. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 45: 971-976.

Payne, D.A.; Evans, K.A. 1986. Interrelationships among three measures of

preference for cognitive style based on hemisphere specialization theory.

Perceptual and Motor Skills. 63: 19-25.

Petri, H.L.; Mishkin, M. 1994. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and the

neuropsychology of memory. American Scientist. 82 (1): 30-37.

Ray, P.H. 1996. The rise of the integral culture. Noetic Sciences Review. 37: 4-15.

Sabatier, P.; Loomis, J.; McCarthy, C. 1996. Policy attitudes and decisions

within the Forest Service. Journal of Forestry. 94(1): 42-46.

Schkade, L.L.; Potvin, A.R. 1981. Cognitive style, EEG waveforms and brain

levels. Human Systems Management. 2(1981): 329-331.

Schueger, J.M.; Allen, L.C. 1986. Second-order factor structure common to five

personality questionnaires. Psychological Reports. 58: 119-126.

Sergent, J. 1995. Hemispheric contributions to face processing: patterns of

convergence and divergence. In: Davidson, R.J.; Hugdahl, K., eds. Brain

asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 157-181.

Shannon, M.A. 1992. Foresters as strategic thinkers, facilitators, and citizens.

Journal of Forestry. 90(10): 24-27.

Shiflett, S.C. 1989. Validity evidence for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a

measure of hemisphere dominance. Educational and Psychological

Measurement. 49: 741-745.

Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice for statistics in

biological research. 3d ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Sparrowe, R.D. 1995. Wildlife managers: don't forget to dance with the one that

brung you. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(4): 556-563.

Springer, S.P.; Deutsch, G. 1993. Left brain, right brain. 4th ed. New York: W.H.

Freeman.

Sternberg, R.J. 1989. The triarchic mind: a new theory of human intelligence. New

York: Penguin.

Tipple, T.J.; Wellman, J.D. 1989. Life in the fishbowl: public participation

rewrites public foresters' job descriptions. Journal of Forestry. 87(3): 24-27, 30.

Twight, B.W.; Lyden, F.J. 1989. Measuring Forest Service bias. Journal of

Forestry. 87(5): 35-41.

Zoccolotti, P.; Oltman, P.K. 1978. Field dependence and lateralization of verbal

and configurational processing. Cortex. 14: 155-168.
Glossary Acculturation-the instillation of a society's culture in an individual from

infancy onward.

Amygdala-an almond-shaped mass of gray matter in the anterior temporal lobe

of the brain.

Aphasia-loss of ability to articulate or comprehend spoken or written language.

Cognition-the mental process of knowing, including awareness, perception,

reasoning, and judgment.

Cognitive-of or relating to cognition or thinking.

Corticolimbic-of or relating to the outer and inner layers of the cerebrum of the

brain.

Groupthink-conformity to the values and ethics of a group.

Heterogeneity-dissimilarity in elements or parts.

Homogeneity-uniformity of structure and composition.

Kurtosis-the extent to which a unimodal frequency curve is peaked; i.e., the

relative steepness of ascent in the neighborhood of the mode. Anormal

distribution has a moment ratio value of three (bell-shaped), Platykurtic

distributions <3 (flat-topped), and leptokurtic >3 (narrow-topped).

Limbic-of or relating to the inner cortex of the brain.

Personality-the collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and

mental traits of a person.

Promax rotation-a specific approach to factor analysis, which seeks to extract a

few factors from many variables to better explain complex relations among the

variables of interest.

Psychometric-of or relating to the measurement of psychological variables,

such as intelligence, aptitude, and personality traits.

Skewness-asymmetry in a frequency distribution; negative skewness refers to a

long tail of low values, positive to a long tail of high values.

Socialization-the process of making an individual fit for companionship with

others and amenable to the needs of society.

Triune brain-a model of human brain development based on the

superimposition of the reptilian, old mammal, and new mammal brains to form

the brainstem and midbrain, the limbic system, and the cerebral cortex.

Visuospatial-of or relating to visual perception of spatial relations among

objects.