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.
No comments:
Post a Comment