Do Something About Value Orientation

As we continue our discussion on values, a critical review of ethical decision making is warranted.  In addition to its benefits for self-understanding, awareness of your own level of values maturity also has important practical implications for ethical decision making.  By and large, the American public rates the honesty, integrity, and concern for moral values of American business executives as abysmal.  A large majority of the public indicates that they think executives are dishonest, overly profit-oriented, and willing to step on other people to get what they want (Andrews, 1989; Harris & Sutton, 1995; Lozano, 1996).

As we continue to discuss the importance of understanding a candidate’s value system prior to employment consideration, we have to integrate the value system of the organization.  Values have to be driven and maintained from the top of the organization and then supported by employees who share a congruent belief system. 

As we make moral and ethical choices, the following standards could be used to test our own principles:

·         Front Page Test: Would I be embarrassed if my decision became a headline in the local newspaper?  Would I feel comfortable describing my actions or decisions to a customer or stockholder?

·         Golden Rule Test: Would I be willing to be treated in the same manner?

·         Dignity and Liberty Test: Are the dignity and liberty of others preserved by this decision?  Is the basic humanity of the affected parties enhanced?  Are their opportunities expanded or curtailed?

·         Equal Treatment Test: Are the rights, welfare, and betterment of minorities and lower status people given full consideration?  Does this decision benefit those with privilege but without merit?

·         Personal Gain Test: Is an opportunity for personal gain clouding my judgment?  Would I make the same decision if the outcome did not benefit me in any way?

·         Congruence Test: Is this decision or action consistent with my espoused personal principles?  Does it violate the spirit of any organizational policies or laws?

·         Procedural Justice Test:  Can the procedures used to make this decision stand up to scrutiny by those affected?

·         Cost-Benefit Test: Does a benefit for some cause unacceptable harm to others?  How critical is the benefit?  Can the harmful effects be mitigated?

·         Good Night’s Sleep Test:  Whether or not anyone else knows about my action, will it produce a good night’s sleep?

Few of us watch the news without total disdain from the countless examples of zero leadership, deceit, self-centeredness, and so forth exhibited from our businesses, governmental processes, and citizenship.  The importance of value orientation cannot be over emphasized.  Your personal life, your family, your relationships within the community, and your allegiance to the collective whole depend on it.

Stop, think, and help fix the bigger picture.

Why Are Values So Important?

Values are among the most stable and enduring characteristics of individuals.  Much of what we are is a product of the basic values we have developed throughout our lives.  Values are important, and we all proclaim to possess them; however, unless a person’s values are challenged, the values being held remain largely undetected.  In other words, until people encounter a contradiction or a threat to their basic values, they seldom articulate their values or seek to clarify them.

Rokeach (1973) argued that the total number of values people possess is relatively small and that all individuals possess the same values, but in different degrees.  For example, everyone values peace, but some make it a higher priority than others.  Two general types of values were identified by Rokeach, instrumental values and terminal values.

Instrumental values prescribe desirable standards of conduct or methods for attaining an end.  Two types of instrumental values related to morality and competence.  Violating moral values (for example, behaving wrongly) causes feelings of guilt, while violating competence values (for example, behaving incapably) brings about feelings of shame.  Of course the real question remains concerning evaluating those we have social and personal relations with, what end of the emotional spectrum does each identify with for each of the values that are important to your organization (for example, I behave badly but may only experience minor feelings of guilt, which is not much of a self-motivated deterrent to unacceptable behavior)?

The experiences of life also cement our values.  Kohlberg (1969) identified that people progress from one level of maturity to another, and as they do, their value priorities change.  Individuals who have progressed to more mature levels of values development possess a qualitatively different set of instrumental values than individuals who are at less mature levels.  Kohlberg’s model is the best known and most widely researched approach to values maturity.  It focuses on the kind of reasoning used to reach a decision about an issue that has value or moral connotations.   The model consists of three major levels: (1) a preconventional level (self-centered) where moral value resides in external factors, and consequences, not persons or relationships; (2) conventional level (conformity) where moral value resides in duty, maintaining social contracts, and keeping commitments; and (3) postconvential (principled) where moral value resides in commitment to freely selected standards, rights, and duties.  An individual’s stage of development using this model ranges from the extremes of right is determined by avoiding punishment and not breaking an authority’s rules to right is guided by internal, universal ethical principles – when laws violate principles, the laws are ignored.  The middle ground encompasses the thought that right is being concerned about others’ feelings and maintaining trust by keeping expectations and commitments – the Golden Rule is relevant.

One of the problems of interviewing potential employees about organizational values is that people can usually tell you what you want to hear, or basically give you the more socially acceptable answer.  Although values are stable and enduring, unless behaviors are observed over time or more rigid psychological testing is utilized, an individual’s value orientation is difficult to determine.

If organizational or personal values are important to the strategic management of your organization, then much thought should be employed to determining who works for you and who doesn’t.  All too often we are disappointed in some aspect of our business performance, when the real root of the problem has more to do with choices of who you put on your team and who you don’t.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence has become a very popular topic that, unfortunately, suffers from the problem that almost all trendy concepts encounter.  Its meaning and measurement have become very confusing and ambiguous.  One way to clarify this problem is to differentiate between emotional intelligence and emotional competence.

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to diagnose, understand, and manage emotional cues.  Emotional competence refers to the noncognitive capabilities and skills, including social skills, which affect human functioning.  These noncognitive skills and abilities are, in fact, among the most important factors in explaining why some people succeed as leaders and managers and others do not.

Emotionally intelligent people are able to get in touch with and accurately diagnose their own internal feelings.  Emotionally intelligent people are able to regulate and control their emotions.  Emotionally intelligent people are also able to accurately diagnose and empathize with the feelings of others.

In a worldwide study of what companies were looking for in hiring new employees, 67 percent of the most desired attributes were emotional intelligence competencies (Goleman et al., 2002).

What is Self-Awareness?

It is impossible to accurately select the few best or most central aspects of self-awareness because the alternatives are just too numerous.  However, for the purposes of this discussion we will focus on five of the most critical areas of self-awareness that have been found to be key in developing successful management.  They are: emotional intelligence, personal values, cognitive style, orientation toward change, and core self-evaluation.

Research on the concept of emotional intelligence, the ability to manage one ’s self and to manage relationships with others, has been identified as among the most important factors in accounting for success in leaders and managers (Boyatzis, Goleman & Rhee, 2000).  In particular, self-awareness has been identified as a crucial aspect of emotional intelligence, and it is more powerful than IQ in predicting success in life (Goleman, 1995).  Emotional intelligence identifies the extent to which people are able to recognize and control their own emotions, as well as to recognize and respond appropriately to the emotions of others.

Personal values are included here because they are “the core of the dynamics of behavior, and play so large a part in unifying personality” (Allport, Gordon &Vernon, 1931).  That is, all other attitudes, orientations, and behaviors arise out of an individuals’ values.  Values identify an individual’s basic standards about what is good and bad, worthwhile and worthless, desirable and undesirable, true and false, moral and immoral.

A third area of self-awareness is cognitive style, which refers to the manner in which individuals gather and process information.  Researchers have found that individual differences in cognitive style influence perception, learning, problem solving, decision making, communication, and creativity (Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007; Hayes & Allinson, 1994; Kirton, 2003).  Cognitive style identifies individual thought processes, perceptions, and methods for acquiring and storing information.  It determines not only what kind of information is received by an individual, but how that individual interprets, judges, and responds to the information. 

Orientation towards change focuses on the methods people use to cope with change in their environment.  Two important dimensions, locus of control and intolerance of ambiguity, are important considerations for evaluating your ability to cope with change.  Orientation towards change identifies the adaptability of individuals.  It includes the extent to which individuals are tolerant of ambiguous, uncertain conditions, and the extent to which they are inclined to accept personal responsibility for their actions under changing conditions.

Core self-evaluation is a recently developed construct that captures the essential aspects of personality, and it identifies the general personality orientation that guides behavior.  It uncovers levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability, and self-control that have important effects on individuals’ happiness as well as managerial effectiveness.

My next discussion will concern itself with the first of these five areas, emotional intelligence.

 

Why Are You Pushing My Buttons?

How can we then improve our ability to evaluate ourselves for the purpose of self-improvement?  One approach has to do understanding the concept of “button pushing”.  In other words this concept refers to the point at which an individual becomes defensive or protective when encountering information about themselves that is inconsistent with their self-concept or when encountering pressure to alter their behavior.  When individuals are threatened, when they encounter uncomfortable information, or when uncertainty is created, they tend to become rigid (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; Weick, 1993).  They hunker down, protect themselves, and become risk averse.  They tend to redouble their efforts to protect what is comfortable and familiar.

In light of this defensiveness, then, how can increased self-knowledge and personal change ever occur?  There are two approaches.  The first has to do with information that is verifiable, predictable, and controllable is less likely to cross into defensive or protective actions.  If an individual can test the validity of the discrepant information, if the information is not unexpected, and if there is some control over what, when, and how much information is revealed, the feedback is more likely to be heard and accepted.

A second answer lies in the role other people can play in helping insight to occur.  It is almost impossible to increase skill in self-awareness unless we interact with and disclose ourselves to others.  Unless one is willing to open up to others, to discuss aspects of the self that seem ambiguous or unknown, little growth can ever occur.

Self-disclosure, therefore, is a key to improvement in self-awareness.  Harris (1981) points out:

Our self-reflection in a mirror does not tell us what we are like; only our reflection in other people.  We are essentially social creatures, and our personality resides in association, not in isolation.

From a theological perspective the same could be said.  Our self-reflection against the Creator tells us our true weaknesses and gives us an opportunity to assimilate the better.

In my next discussion I will explore important areas of self-awareness.

The Mystery of Self-Awareness

Students of human behavior have long known that knowledge of oneself – self-awareness, self-insight, self-understanding – is essential to one’s productive personal and interpersonal functioning, and in understanding and empathizing with other people.  My goal in discussing this topic is to help you understand the importance of self-awareness if you are to be a successful manager and leader of either your business or your family.

Erich Fromm (1939) was one of the first behavioral scientists to observe the close connection between one’s self-concept and one’s feelings about others: “Hatred against oneself is inseparable from hatred against others.”  Carl Rogers (1961) later proposed that self-awareness and self-acceptance are prerequisites for psychological health, personal growth, and the ability to know and accept others.  In fact, Rogers suggested that the basic human need is for self-regard, which he found to be more powerful in his clinical cases than physiological needs; however, self-knowledge may inhibit personal improvement rather than facilitate it.  The reason is that individuals frequently evade personal growth and new self-knowledge.  They resist acquiring additional information in order to protect their self-esteem or self-respect.  If they acquire new knowledge about themselves there is always the possibility that it will be negative or that it will lead to feelings of inferiority, weakness, evilness, or shame.  So they avoid new knowledge.  Therefore, we avoid personal growth, then, because we fear finding out that we are not all that we would like to be.  If there is a better way to be, our current state must therefore be inadequate or inferior.  The realization that one is not totally adequate or knowledgeable is difficult for many people to accept.  This resistance is the “denying of our best side, of our talents, of our finest impulses, of our highest potentialities, of our creativeness” (Maslow, 1962).  Freud (1956) asserted that to be completely honest with oneself is the best effort an individual can make, because complete honesty requires a continual search for more information about the self and a desire for self-improvement.  The results of that search are usually uncomfortable.

Seeking knowledge of the self, therefore, seems to be an enigma.  It is a prerequisite for and motivator of growth and improvement, but it may also inhibit growth and improvement.  It may lead to stagnation because of fear of knowing more.  How, then, can improvement be accomplished?  The answer to this question has several components, to which we will begin to dissect in my next blog.

The Importance of Competent Managers

I often lecture on the topic of management and have often been quoted saying that 80% of those in management and leadership positions are in the wrong seat on the bus.  To be more specific a certain percentage shouldn’t be on the bus at all, but rather ejected as it moves down the road.  Their character flaws and general lack of knowledge for operations under their control significantly hamper the successful progress of an organization and the development of the people who are a part of that organization; in other words they suck all the oxygen out of the air and deplete all other forms of energy thereby hindering the better employees from maximizing their potential.   In general, we universally lack competent leaders in our families and the countless organizations that are a direct and indirect part of our lives.

Dr. Bob Moorehead of Seattle’s Overlake Christian Church, described it this way:

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways but narrower viewpoints.  We spend more but have less; we buy ore but enjoy it less.  We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences but less time.  We have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge but less judgment; more experts but more problems; more medicine but less wellness.  We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get too tired read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.  We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.  We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.  We have learned how to make a living but not a life; we’ve added years to life but not life to years.  We’ve been all the way to the moon and back but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor.  We’ve conquered outer space but not inner space.  We’ve done larger things but not better things.  We’ve cleaned up the air but polluted the soul.  We’ve split the atom but not our prejudice.  We write more but learn less.  We plan more but accomplish less.  We’ve learned to rush but not to wait.  We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever but have less communication.  These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men and short character; steep profits and shallow relationships.  These are the times of world peace but domestic warfare; more leisure but less fun; more kinds of food but less nutrition.  These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, of fancier houses but broken homes.  These are the days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.  It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom.

After reading Dr. Moorehead’s assessment of the current state of human life, most of us would agree that he was spot on, and in fact, his points are at the heart of the deficiencies of people in general and more specifically are the contributing factors to the ruling majority: incompetent managers.  Despite all this change in our environment, there is something that has remained, and continues to remain relatively constant.  With minor variations and stylistic differences, what has not changed in several thousand years are the basic skills that lie at the heart of effective, satisfying, growth-producing human relationships.  Freedom, dignity, trust, love, and honesty in relationships have always been among the goals of human beings, and these same basic human skills still like at the heart of effective human interaction.  This series will discuss skills that help us become more competent as managers and leaders in our families, businesses, churches, and communities.  These skills include managing conflict, motivating employees, communicating supportively, gaining power and influence, building effective teams, leading positive change, empowering and delegating, solving problems creatively, managing stress and developing self-awareness.

In my next blog I will discuss the first topic of this series, developing self-awareness.