LSI Coaching Program Information

FAQ about LSI

Dr. J. Clayton Lafferty (1928-1997), commonly known as Clay, drew inspiration from two individuals: Abraham Maslow, who focused on self-actualization, and David McClelland, who emphasised the need for achievement (N Ach). However, Clay's interests diverged from theirs in two ways:

1. He delved into the barriers that prevented people from reaching these desired states.

2. He explored what areas individuals excelled in if they lacked achievement orientation.

According to Clay, the answers to these inquiries could be found in the works of Harry Stacks Sullivan and Karen Horney. Both Sullivan and Horney described various "defensive" thinking and behavioural patterns.

+ The Circumplex

Timothy Leary: Clay examined Leary's Interpersonal Circumplex during his doctoral dissertation and was influenced by the idea of different thinking styles and their relationships within this model.

Blake & Mouton: Task vs People: This early and influential theory on managerial styles by Blake and Mouton confirmed that managers showed interest in receiving feedback about their own styles.

Harry Stack Sullivan: Satisfaction vs Security: Sullivan's influence on Leary and others attracted Clay to Sullivan's "Self System" and the idea of combining task-oriented and people-oriented approaches with satisfaction and security needs.

Karen Horney: Theory of the Self: Similar to Sullivan, Horney developed her own "Theory of the Self," and Clay appreciated the distinctions of Compliance, Aggression, and Detachment.

Abraham Maslow: Self-Actualizing: Clay greatly admired Maslow's work, believing that helping people become truly healthy and self-actualized was a significant accomplishment.

David McClelland: N-Ach: Clay considered McClelland's work brilliant as it linked specific thinking patterns to effectiveness. Teaching achievement thinking became a central focus for Clay.

Carl Rogers: Humanism: Clay believed that Maslow's, McClelland's, and Rogers' works could be integrated to describe healthy thinking patterns, with Rogers' humanism adding a softer touch to task-oriented achievement.

+ What is the meaning of the percentile rings?

The percentile rings start at the centre of the Circumplex and extend outwards. How high you score for a particular style will depend on how you compare to the norming group.

+ Why are the percentile scores more relevant to interpreting individual results than the raw scores?

The statistically normed circumplex allows individuals to compare their results for both LSI 1 and LS2 with results from a researched and matched international norming group of individuals who have completed the inventory.

The bold centering in the circumplex reflects the median score for each of the 12 styles (the 50th percentile)

+ What is a norming group and what are the characteristics of the LSI norming group?

Norms help interpret an individual’s score. By comparing an individual’s raw score to how other people score themselves (LSI1) or are described by others (LSI 2), conclusions can be drawn about the ‘strength of that raw score.

• Is it comparatively low?
• Is it comparatively medium?
• Is it comparatively high?

This leads to conclusions regarding the extent to which these styles reflect the personal thinking (LSI 1) and behaviour (LSI 2) of the individual receiving the feedback and the extent to why this thinking/behaviour is supporting or limiting in the quest to realise personal potential and effectiveness.

+ When are the LSI Norms reviewed and checked?

The LSI norms are regularly reviewed against new data sets to ensure reliability and validity.

+ Have there been significant shifts?

To this date, no, there have been no significant shifts

+ Why do the norms for LSI 1 differ from those for the LSI 2?

The LSI 2 and LSI 2 are different diagnostic tools. The LSI 1 norms are based on a sample of those who describe themselves, The LSI 2 norms are based on a sample of those describing others.

+ Why do the norms differ for each of the styles?

The differences in norms for each style reflect their degree of social desirability.

+ What does the ranking of items in the item by item report mean?

Item scores can range from 0 (essentially unlike you) to 2 (like you most of the time). These are your response scores for the LSI items listed by style.

+ How are the items ordered?

The items are listed in order of the strength of their relationship to effectiveness. Those near the top are more strongly and positively related to effectiveness items (based on LSI 2) than those toward the bottom (All items correlate, some are stronger than others).

In LSI 2, what does the median and difference (delta) relate to, and how does this support the debrief process?

The Delta (Δ, difference) Score represents your scores minus the median scores for the norming group. The goal is positive delta scores for constructive styles and negative delta scores for Defensive styles.

+ Can we use LSI for recruitment, selection or promotion?

No. The LSI was developed strictly for purposes of self-development. It is neither validated nor normed for any other purpose. The norming samples on which the percentile scores are based only include individuals who assumed that their results would be used for personal development and kept strictly confidential.

+ Why does the LSI use a 3 -point response scale that doesn’t include a midpoint option?

The LSI uses Guttman’s approach to simplex measurement .This involves presenting the respondent with a series of questions measuring the same thing, each of which could be ordered along a continuum of intensity or likelihood of endorsement. Although it does not include a midway point. The LSI incorporates Likert scale scaling due to being accustomed to having more than 2 responses. The 3-point response scale is known as a modified Guttman Scale.

+ Why are certain items that seem positive, considered to be aspects of a defensive style?

All of the styles, including those that are defensive, have positive aspects. For example, some degree of certain types of Defensive thinking and behaviour can be functional as long as it doesn’t predominate an individual general thinking and behaviourial style.To gain a deeper understanding of the styles and their results review your line by line items.

In designing the LSI inventory, Dr Lafferty was particularly interested in using the adjectival descriptive method.

+ Why the Guttman scale?

In designing the LSI inventory, Dr Lafferty was particularly interested in using the adjectival descriptive method. This involves a list of adjectives, to which the respondent basically agrees or disagrees that these are descriptive of themselves (LSI 1) or the person being described (LSI 2). Since people will use all of these thinking/behavioural descriptors at some stage, using a Likert scale (1 to 5 scale) would increase the probability of scores at the middle of the range for many items, allowing for little ‘discrimination’ (important for statistical analysis). Using a Guttman scale ‘forces’ the respondent to either agree or disagree with the descriptor. By using a ‘modified’ Guttman scale, the respondent is able to discriminate the strength of each descriptor – unlike me/this person, like me/this person quite often, like me/this person most of the time. This discrimination allows for better statistical analysis in terms of reliability, validity and test-retest measurement – all very important strengths of the LSI.