Information

The Style of Influence Test (SOI)

• Technical Information
• Five Scales
• Scale Dynamics
• Summary

Technical Information

HDC uses the Style of Influence (SOI) questionnaire to produce its basic summary and the experience of its consultant to help refine the understanding of the information received by the individual. Questions as to the validity of the SOI are legitimate as it is the basis for the report.

The SOI has “Internal Reliability” ratings that are in the high to excellent range, with Alpha scores (Cronbach's Alpha was used as a criterion) ranging from .82 to .87 on the four scales. Scores over .8 are considered “high” by industry standards and a 1 would be perfect. Most of the popular tests on the market do not score as well on every scale.

The SOI also has “Construct Validity”. Through standard practices of evaluation (convergent and divergent methods) the similar trait ratings converged with given scale scores and different trait ratings diverged from the same scales score. All ratings were significant at the .05 level and lower, demonstrating that the questionnaire does possess construct validity.

Norms are currently being expanded through the growing use of the tool. However, in the original research there were only two male / female normative distinctions.

These two include the Relational Scale where women tended to score 3 points higher (on the average) than men, and the Detail Orientation Scale where men tended to score 1.5 points higher than women. Additional research through an expanding network of testing is likely to remove these two anomalies or indicate that they are “cultural” in origin.

Five Scales

The SOI has four measurement scales and a motivational distortion scale that measures any bias (negative or positive) that a person may have toward themselves and / or the world around them. A score that reads “negative bias” would indicate that the person might be in personal distress, they might have a poor self-perception, or they may believe that the world is a critical or harsh place. Regardless of why it is there what it means is that the person's scores on the other four scales may be accentuated toward the “negative” end of the scale. The “negative end of the scale” will be whichever end of the scale the person feels it is least “good” to be. For example: If a “negatively biased” person believes it is “good” to be freedom oriented (the bottom of the Detail scale) and bad to be controlled (the top of the Detail scale) then their score will be accentuated toward the control end (the top) of the Detail scale. “Positively Biased” people will work the same way except their scores will be accentuated toward the end of the scale they value as good or positive.

Scale Dynamics

Each of the four measurement scales is made up of two opposing values; one at the top and one at the bottom. Correspondingly, each score is made up of both values a score or 50% would be an equal mix of both values. For the sake of simplicity each score is presented in only one (the value at the top of the scale) of the two values. There are no distinct advantages to the upper values as can be seen in the “Scale Descriptions” below, however, the “up” scale values are more proactively used and resistant to outside stimulus while the low scale values tend to be more responsive to outside stimulus and wait for the opportunity to be expressed.

The Cognitive scale measures how abstractly or concretely one ingests, processes, and expresses ideas. It does not measure intelligence, communication ability, or creativity, it only measures the “form” that ideas will most often take when being understood and expressed. An “abstract” person understands the value of an idea intuitively from a “principle or value” driven perspective, because of this he or she is more likely to grasp how one idea can effect another changing the meaning of both. The “concrete” person understands the value of an idea on a practical or pragmatic level, therefore, they are more likely to understand the “real” or physical world expression of and idea and how the actions associated with that idea will impact other actions.

Both values are equally important and each has a distinct advantage over the other. Misused both are equally destructive.

The Relational scale measures how emotionally empathetic or insulated a person is to the non-rational input and influence of the emotions in the environment around them. It does not measure sociability, compassion, or nature or volume of emotions that a person has. It only measures how much their emotions are effected by the emotions around them and how oriented they are to that input. The high empathy person is likely to respond to others emotional needs because they themselves are personally and emotionally impacted by the emotions of others. The value of this personal impact on those around them is constantly measured and evaluated creating behavior that is designed not to create emotional disturbance. “Non-rational impact” takes a key role in the decision making process causing them to act in a way that builds non-rational commitment to themselves or others. People with low relational scores may have an equal cognitive understanding of the impact on people but they do not “weight” it the same in their decision making process. They tend to see things from a position of emotional detachment. This allows them a freedom to act for the benefit of “an idea”, a “goal” or a “process” apart from the people involved with it. When misused the high relational person becomes manipulative and the low relational person can be emotionally abusive.

The Goal Achievement scale measures how closure/task vs. process/people minded a person is while engaged in any activity. The scale does not present a person's “work ethic” or how “strong of will” a person is, nor does it measure ability to lead. It only measures how externally or internally expressive or, how actively or responsive their will is to the will of others engage in the achievement process with them. People with high Goal scores feel a tremendous internal pressure to close on the goal, mark it off their list, or be done with it. The work does not have to be complete but is does have to “move off their plate” and become someone else's responsibility. Because of this, they tend to take and wield authority readily and when authority is ambiguous they will tend to define it; giving to their self adequate authority to direct the people involved. Those who score low on this scale tend to abdicate their goals for the goals of others and therefore seem more responsive. Although they are just as “strong willed” as others they tend to reserve their strongest expressions of the will for themselves and can be more “self determining” than those who are higher on this scale.

The Preference for Detail scale measures a person's affinity for the level of control that they will likely maintain over the physical environment around them with “their own two hands” vs. the orientation toward freedom, delegation of details, chaos, and independence from ongoing task responsibility that they may have. Those who are high on this scale require and need order in their world and can become quite disturbed by disorganized unaccounted for details. Those who are low on this scale are actually more comfortable in a chaotic environment, where little is defined and organized. This scale does not measure skill in organizing but it does measure (in part) a preference for maintaining organization.

Summary

The information that the SOI gathers is beneficial any time we must engage with others. These insights work to create a framework in which to define what people need or desire from one another. This creates greater understanding, so that communication becomes more natural, more complete and less difficult. Our intent in interacting with others, our word choices in communication, even the central foci of our relationships with others is driven by the factors measured in the Style of Influence test. These insights or “self-knowledge” will help us find a joyful productive role in life: one in which our primary responsibilities are centered on our primary desires. Unfortunately for many, a clear “self-knowledge” is gained only after the life events that create “role definition” have happened. Therefore, they find themselves struggling within roles that do not fit them well and / or roles for which they are completely unprepared to find satisfaction.