Chapter 1.pdf

SKILL LEARNING Key Dimensions of Self-Awareness following chapter on stress and time management. Moreover, as Figure 1.1 illustrates, when problems For more than 300 years, knowledge of the self has...

SKILL LEARNING Key Dimensions of Self-Awareness For more than 300 years, knowledge of the self has been considered to be at the very core of human behavior. The ancient dictum “Know thyself” has been variously attributed to Plato, Pythagoras, Thales, and Socrates. Plutarch noted that this inscription was carved on the Delphic Oracle, that mystical sanctuary where kings and generals sought advice on matters of greatest importance to them. As early as 42 B.C., Publilius Syrus proposed: “It matters not what you are thought to be, but what you are.” Alfred Lord Tennyson said: “Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control, these three alone lead to sovereign power.” Probably the most oft-quoted passage on the self is Polonius’ advice in Hamlet: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Messinger reminded us: “He that would govern others must ﬁrst master himself.” Self-awareness lies at the heart of the ability to master oneself, but it is not sufficient. While self-management depends first and foremost on self-awareness, as illustrated in Figure 1.1, other self-management skills are closely linked to and build upon self-awareness. Developing self-control, for example, and clarifying priorities and goals, help indi- viduals create direction in their own lives. Effectively managing time and stress make it possible for individu- als to adapt to and organize their surroundings. This chapter centers on the core aspects of self- management and serves as the foundation for the Figure 1.1 A Hierarchy of Personal Life-Management Symptom Problem The Enigma of Self-Awareness Erich Fromm (1939) was one of the ﬁrst behavioral sci- entists to observe the close connection between one’s self-concept and one’s feelings about others: against oneself is inseparable from hatred against others.” Carl Rogers (1961) later proposed that self- awareness and self-acceptance are prerequisites for psy- chological 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. Brouwer (1964, p. 156) asserted: The function of self-examination is to lay the groundwork for insight, without which no growth can occur. Insight is the “Oh, I see now” feeling which must consciously or unconsciously precede change in behavior. Insights—real, gen- uine glimpses of ourselves as we really are—are reached only with difﬁculty and sometimes with real psychic pain. But they are the building blocks of growth. Thus, self-examination is a preparation for insight, a groundbreaking for the seeds of self-understanding which gradually bloom into changed behavior. There is little question that the knowledge we pos- sess about ourselves, which makes up our is central to improving our management skills. not improve ourselves or develop new capabilities unless and until we know what level of capability we currently possess. Considerable empirical evidence exists that individuals who are more self-aware are more healthy, perform better in managerial and leader- ship roles, and are more productive at work (Boyatzis, 1982; Cervone, 1997; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). On the other hand, self-knowledge may inhibit personal improvement rather than facilitate it. The rea- son 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 inferi- ority, weakness, evilness, or shame. So they avoid new self-knowledge. As Maslow (1962, p. 57) notes: We tend to be afraid of any knowledge that would cause us to despise ourselves or to make us feel inferior, weak, worthless, evil, shameful. We protect ourselves and our ideal image of 58 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS if you think you have done a good job as a manager. This would be especially true if the coworker was an inﬂuential person. Your response would probably be to defend yourself against the information to protect the image you hold of yourself. This response is known as the threat-rigidity response (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; Weick, 1993). When individuals are threatened, when they encounter uncomfortable information, or when uncer- tainty is created, they tend to become rigid. They hunker down, protect themselves, and become risk averse. Consider what happens when you are startled or sud- denly shocked by something unexpected. Physically, your body tends to become rigid in order to protect itself. It tightens up to safeguard stability. Similarly, individuals also become rigid—psychologically and emotionally— when they encounter information that is a threat to their self-concept. They tend to redouble their efforts to pro- tect what is comfortable and familiar (Cameron, 1994; Cameron, Kim, & Whetten, 1987; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2000). They rely on ﬁrst-learned or most reinforced behavior patterns and emotions. When discrepancies in the self-image are encountered, in other words, the valid- ity of the information or its source is denied, or other kinds of defense mechanisms are used to ensure that the self-concept remains stable. Crossing the sensitive line creates rigidity and self-preservation. In light of this defensiveness, then, how can increased self-knowledge and personal change ever occur? There are at least two answers. One is that information that is veriﬁable, predictable, and control- lable is less likely to cross the sensitive line than infor- mation without those characteristics. That is, if an individual can test the validity of the discrepant infor- mation (for example, if some objective standard exists for evaluating the accuracy of the information), if the information is not unexpected or “out-of-the-blue” (for example, if it is received at regular intervals), and if there is some control over what, when, and how much information is received (for example, if it is requested), the feedback is more likely to be heard and accepted. The information you receive about yourself in this chapter possesses those three charac- teristics. You have already completed several self- assessment instruments that have been used exten- sively in research. Their reliability and validity have been established. Moreover, they have been found to be associated with managerial success. Therefore, as you analyze your scores and seek honestly to understand more about your underlying attributes, you can gain important insight that will prove to be very useful. involving others in your pursuit of self-understanding. The support and feedback individuals receive from others during the process of self-disclosure, besides helping to increase feedback and self-awareness, helps information contribute to greater self-awareness with- out crossing the sensitive line. Understanding and Appreciating Individual Differences Another important reason for focusing on self- awareness is to help you develop the ability to diagnose important differences among others with whom you interact. There is considerable evidence that an individ- ual’s effectiveness as a manager is closely related to his or her ability to recognize, appreciate, and ultimately utilize key, fundamental differences among others. This topic is commonly discussed in the management litera- ture under the subject of “managing diversity.” The diversity literature has progressed through a series of stages, beginning with a plethora of statistics demon- strating the extent to which, and the speciﬁc ways in which, the workforce is becoming more diverse. This was followed by evidence-based arguments touting the merits of a diverse group of workers contributing to the performance of a work group (Cox, 1994). The primary sources of diversity discussed in this literature are gender, age, culture, and ethnicity. In this chapter, and throughout the book, we use broader, more inclusive, and less ambiguous terminol- ogy that is more conducive to skill development. Whereas it is difﬁcult, for example, to understand all the ramiﬁcations of “managing diversity,” be sensitive to certain important differences that affect the way you manage others. In other words, this chap- ter has two objectives: (1) to help you better understand your own uniqueness as an individual—to become bet- ter equipped to manage yourself—and (2) to help you diagnose, value, and utilize the differences you ﬁnd in other people. Self-knowledge will help you understand your own taken-for-granted assumptions, trigger points, sen- sitive line, comfort zone, strengths and weaknesses, and so forth. This knowledge is useful for all of us, not because we can or should change fundamental dimen- sions of ourselves, but because it helps make our inter- actions with others more effective and insightful. It also helps us gain a more complete understanding of our potential for contributing value in our future career roles and our special strengths relative to others. It is not unusual for many of us to feel intimidated at times, for example, by heroic or luminary ﬁgures whose suc- 60 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS distinctions. One is helpful; the other is hurtful. Moreover, when others feel that self-disclosing informa- tion could be used against them—that is, they could be placed on the disadvantaged side of a distinction—they will be reluctant to participate in any self-discovery process, especially one that requires them to share infor- mation about their personal characteristics. To repeat, self-awareness and understanding differ- ences cannot occur without self-disclosure, sharing, and trusting conversations. Self-knowledge requires an under- standing and valuing of differences, not the creation of distinctions. We encourage you, therefore, to use the information you discover about yourself and others to build, grow, and value both of you in your interactions. Important Areas of Self-Awareness Of course, an innumerable quantity of personal dimen- sions is available to explore if one is to develop in-depth self-awareness. For example, numerous aspects of cogni- tive style have been measured; authors have identiﬁed more than a dozen “intelligences” (ranging from social and practical to cognitive and creative); literally hun- dreds of personality factors have been investigated in the psychological literature; the mapping of the human chro- mosome has raised the possibility that hundreds of phys- iological differences may be crucial in understanding behavior; gender, age, cultural, ethnic, and experience differences all develop individually over time. It is impos- sible, of course, to accurately select the few best or most central aspects of self-awareness because the alternatives are just too numerous. On the other hand, we focus here 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. These areas represent a limited set of factors, of course, but they have been found to be among the most important predictors of various aspects of effective managerial performance—including achieving life success, performing effectively in teams, competent decision making, life-long learning and devel- opment, creativity, communication competency, job sat- isfaction, and job performance (Allan & Waclawski, 1999; Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Goleman, 1998b; Judge et al., 2003; Parker & Kram, 1993; Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007). Research on the concept of emotional intelligence—the ability to manage oneself 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, & Fourth, a discussion of orientation toward change focuses on the methods people use to cope with change in their environment. In the twenty-ﬁrst century, of course, all of us will be faced with increas- ingly fragmented, rapidly changing, tumultuous condi- tions (Peters, 1987). It is important that you become aware of your orientation toward adapting to these con- ditions. Two important dimensions—locus of control and intolerance of ambiguity—have been measured by two assessment instruments. Research connecting these two dimensions to effective management is dis- cussed in the sections that follow. Finally, core self-evaluation is a recently devel- oped construct that captures the essential aspects of personality. More than 50,000 studies have been con- ducted on what has been referred to as “the Big Five” personality dimensions—neuroticism, extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness—but an underlying factor has been found to account for the effects of these personality dimensions. It is referred to as core self-evaluation (Judge et al., 2003), and we provide an instrument that assesses your core self- evaluation. Some important research on this construct is explained in this chapter relating to how scores correlate with success at work and in life. By analyz- ing your scores, you not only learn about your under- lying personality dimensions, but you also will learn about how they are associated with other important behaviors such as motivation, problem solving, ativity, life satisfaction, and work performance. These ﬁve areas of self-awareness—emotional intel- ligence, personal values, learning style, orientation toward change, and core self-evaluation—constitute the very core of the self-concept. Emotional intelligence identiﬁes the extent to which people are able to recog- nize and control their own emotions, as well as to recognize and respond appropriately to the emotions of others. 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. 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 infor- mation. Orientation toward 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 identiﬁes the general personality orientation that guides behavior. It 62 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS Figure 1.2 Five Core Aspects of Self-Awareness Emotional Intelligence Identifies emotional awareness and control Attitudes Toward Change Identifies adaptability and responsibility In particular, only Bar-On’s EQ-I measure (Bar-On, 1997)—a self-report instrument that deﬁnes emotional intelligence as an array of noncognitive skills; Salovey’s Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Salovey & Mayer, 1990)—a behavioral assessment that deﬁnes emotional intelligence as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action”(p. 185); and Goleman and Boyatzis’ Emotional Competence Inventory (Boyatzis et al., 2000)—a 360- degree assessment that deﬁnes emotional intelligence as “the composite set of capabilities that enable a person to manage himself or herself and others,” (p. 344) have been scientiﬁcally validated. The trouble is, each of these instruments is far too lengthy to be included in this text, and each is protected under copyright. Virtually all other instruments, including the one included in this book, are designed merely to provide a general estimate of particular dimensions of emotional intelligence, and extensive research has not yet been published. As you can tell by the widely differing deﬁnitions associated with the three major assessment instruments deﬁnition is the one we have adopted in this chapter because the remainder of this book is focused on help- ing you develop competency and capability in skills that some would include under the emotional compe- tence umbrella. That is, the management skills cov- ered in this text—which have been well-researched and found to predict the success of managers and leaders—are sometimes included in discussions of the impact of emotional intelligence. In this regard, we agree that they are critical. These noncognitive skills and abilities are, in fact, among the most important fac- tors in explaining why some people succeed as leaders and managers and others do not. On the other hand, a much narrower treatment of emotional intelligence limits it to emotions, not to social or interpersonal skills. This is the position we adopt in this chapter. We will help you assess, in an in-depth and rigorous way, other social and behavioral skills through- out the remainder of the book. It is important to point out that a certain degree of emotional intelligence is necessary in order for people to develop emotional competencies (i.e., social and behavioral competen- cies), so this aspect of self-awareness is an important pre- requisite to your developing other management skills. Emotional intelligence, then, refers to: (1) the ability to diagnose and recognize your own emotions, (2) the ability to control your own emotions, (3) the ability to recognize and diagnose the emotions displayed by others, and (4) the ability to respond appropriately to those emotional cues. These abilities are not in-born but can be developed and improved. Unlike IQ, for example, which remains relatively constant over a lifetime, emo- tional intelligence can be enhanced with practice. With concerted effort, people can change their levels of emo- tional intelligence. The instrument you completed in the Pre-assessment section assesses these four dimensions, and we brieﬂy explain them below. One of our acquaintances, who now readily admits having made progress in developing emotional intelligence, had a great deal of difﬁculty recognizing and diagnosing her own emotions. When something seemed to go wrong and she was asked, “Are you upset?” she would invariably deny her feelings—“No, I’m fine.” She had never learned to accurately diag- nose her own emotional state. This ability is simply the capacity to identify and label your own emotions. Try, for example, to identify the emotion you are feeling right now. Can you label it? Emotionally intelligent people are able to get in touch with and accurately diagnose their own internal feelings. Emotionally intelligent people are also able to reg- ulate and control their emotions. They are less likely to 64 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS characterizes our society. Less emphasis is placed on emotional intelligence development now than in the past. This is a problem because emotional intelligence has strong predictive power regarding success in man- agement and in work setting—much stronger, in fact, than IQ scores. For example, it is estimated that IQ accounts for only about 10 percent of the variance in job performance and in life success (Sternberg, 1996), but by adding emotional intelligence (EQ) to the equa- tion, we can account for four times more variance. For example, a study was conducted of 450 boys who grew up in a small town in Massachusetts. Two thirds of the boys lived in welfare families and one third had IQ scores below 90. They were followed over 40 years, and it was found that IQ had almost nothing to do with life success. Emotional intelligence, on the other hand, was the most predictive factor (Snarey & Vaillant, 1985). Another study of 80 PhDs in science who attended the University of California at Berkeley in the 1950s found that what accounted for life success 40 years after graduation was mainly emotional intelli- gence scores. Emotional intelligence was four times more important than IQ in determining who had achieved in their careers, were evaluated by experts as being highly successful, and were listed in sources such as Who’s Who and American Men and Women of Science (Feist & Barron, 1996). A study of workers fol- lowed over 20 years found that employees who were better at empathizing with others—that is, demonstrat- ing a key aspect of emotional intelligence—were more successful in their work, as well as in their social lives (Rosenthal, 1977). Emotional intelligence has also been found to be an important predictor of managerial success. In a study of managers on three continents, for example, 74 percent of successful managers had emotional intelligence as their most salient characteristic, whereas this was the case in only 24 percent of the failures. A study at PepsiCo found that company units headed by managers with well-developed emotional intelligence skills outper- formed yearly revenue targets by 15 to 20 percent. Those with underdeveloped skills underperformed their targets by about the same amount (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). A McBer study comparing outstanding managers with average managers found that 90 percent of the difference was accounted for by emotional intelli- gence. In a worldwide study of what companies were looking for in hiring new employees, 67 percent of the most desired attributes were emotional intelligence com- petencies (Goleman et al., 2002). In a study of highly emotionally intelligent partners in a consulting ﬁrm, in which they were compared to partners with average The values held by each of us are affected by a vari- ety of factors, and a number of ways have been used to measure and describe values. We point out several ways in this chapter—each of which has used in research and in management circles. a framework for describing the broad, general value ori- entations that characterize large groups, such as nation- alities, ethnic groups, industries, or organizations. Much research has been done, for example, on identi- fying the differences in values that arise across cultural groups. The point of this research is to identify ways in which nationalities differ from one another, since almost all managers now face the need to manage across national boundaries. In your own life, it is likely that you will interact more and more with individuals who do not share your birth country, and knowing something about their value orientations will help your interactions be more effective. It has been discovered that values differ systematically across national cul- tures, and these differences are a strong influence in Table 1.1 Cultural Values Dimensions VALUE DIMENSIONS Universalism Particularism Individualism Collectivism Affective Neutral Speciﬁc Diffuse Achievement Ascription Past and Present Future Internal External SOURCE: C. Hampden-Turner and F. Trompenaars, 66 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS countries (e.g., the United States, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland) emphasize a value of universalism, in which other people’s behavior is governed by universal standards and rules—e.g., do not lie, do not cheat, do not run a red light, even if no one is coming the other way. General societal rules govern behavior. Other countries (e.g., Korea, China, Indonesia, Singapore) hold a value of particularism, in which the relationship with an individual governs behavior—e.g., is the other person a friend, a family member, a relative? To illustrate the differences, consider your answer to this question: You are driving in a car with a close friend who hits a pedestrian while going 40 miles an hour in a 25-mile- an-hour zone. There are no witnesses, and your friend’s lawyer says that if you’ll testify that he was only traveling 25 miles an hour, he’ll get off. Will you lie for him? People in universalistic cultures are more likely to refuse than people in particularistic cultures. For example 97 percent of the Swiss and 93 percent of North Americans (Canada and the United States) would refuse to testify, whereas 32 percent of Venezuelans and 37 percent of South Koreans would refuse. A second value dimension differentiates cultures that value individualism—an emphasis on the self, on independence, and on uniqueness—versus collectivism—an emphasis on the group, the com- bined unit, and on joining with others. Individualistic values hold the contributions of individuals to be most valued, whereas collectivism values team contributions. In general, individual responsibility dominates much more in Western cultures than in Eastern cultures. For example, consider your answer to this question: What kind of job is found most frequently in your organiza- tion, one where everyone works together and you do not get individual credit, or one where everyone is allowed to work individually and you receive individual recognition? Eastern Europeans (e.g, Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland) average above 80 percent in agreeing that individual credit is received, whereas Asians (e.g., Japan, India, Nepal) average below 45 per- cent. (The United States score is 72 percent.) A third value dimension refers to the display of feel- ings in public. It identiﬁes an affective versus neutral orientation. Cultures with high affective values tend to show emotions openly and to deal in emotional ways with problems. Loud laughter, anger, and intense pas- sion may all be displayed in the course of a business negotiation, for example. Cultures with neutral values are more rational and stoic in their approach to problem solving. Instrumental, goal directed behaviors rather than emotions dominate interactions. For example, if you became very upset at work or in class—say you feel placed on the past, present, or future in various cultures. Some cultures, for example, value past and tradition more than future; other cultures place more value on the future than the past. What you have achieved in the past matters more in some cultures than where you are headed in the future. Time differ- ences also exist regarding short- versus long-time hori- zons. For example, some people are oriented toward very short time horizons where they think in terms of minutes and hours (a short-time horizon). Other people think in terms of months or years (a long-time horizon). Complete the following brief exercise, for example, to get a sense of your own time horizon. Use the follow- ing scale and give a number to each of the following statements: My past started ______ ago, and ended ______ ago. My present started ______ ago and ended ______ from now. My future will start ______ from now and will end ______ from now. Use this rat- ing scale: 7 = years, 6 = months, 5 = weeks, 4 = days, 3 = hours, 2 = minutes, 1 = seconds. By way of comparison, people in the Philippines averaged 3.40 on the scale, Irish managers averaged 3.82, and Brazilians averaged 3.85. On the other hand, managers in Hong Kong averaged 5.71, Portugal averaged 5.62, and Pakistan averaged 5.47. (People in the United States averaged 4.30.) The seventh and ﬁnal value dimension focuses on internal and external control. We will discuss this value dimension in more detail later in the chapter. It differen- tiates cultures that presume that individuals trol of their own destinies from those that nature or external forces control much of what happens. For example, some countries emphasize the value of individuals inventing or creating things themselves (internal control), whereas other countries emphasize the value of taking what already exists or has been cre- ated elsewhere and then reﬁning or improving it (exter- nal control). Two statements that illustrate this differ- ence are the following: (1) What happens to me is my own doing. (2) Sometimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the directions my life is taking. More than 80 percent of managers from Uruguay, Norway, Israel, and the United States agree with the first statement, whereas less than 40 percent of Venezuelans, Chinese, and Nepalese agree. Throughout this book we will refer back to some of the differences that have been discovered among various cultures. We encourage you to begin using these dimensions to raise your awareness of individ- ual differences around you. Because virtually every manager will be faced with the opportunity to interact with and manage individuals born in other cultures, 68 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS to Rokeach, than there are instrumental values, so the sum total for all individuals in all societies can be identi- ﬁed. Terminal values are either personal (for example, peace of mind) or social (for example, world peace). Rokeach has found that an increase in the priority of one personal value tends to increase the priority of other personal values and decrease the priority of social values. Conversely, an increase in the priority of one social value tends to increase the priority of other social values and decrease the value of personal values. Individuals who increase their priority for “a world at peace,” for example, would also increase their priority for “equality” while decreasing their priority for “plea- sure” or “self-respect.” People tend to differ, in other words, in the extent to which they are self- versus others-orientated in their values. In one study of 567 managers in 12 nations, the instrumental values “broadminded,” “capable,” and “courageous” were held in the highest esteem by man- agers from all 12 nations, but signiﬁcant national differ- ences were found on 75 percent of the values (Bigoness & Blakely, 1996). Another study of 658 Egyptians, 132 Americans, 43 Africans, and 101 Arabs found signiﬁcant national differences on both instrumental and terminal values, with Egyptians being least like Americans (Elsayed-Elkhouly & Buda, 1997). In a national study of 1,460 American managers, Schmidt and Posner (1982) assessed which of these values were most important in the workplace. Using Rokeach’s instrumental values list, they asked man- agers to identify those that were most desired in the workplace. “Responsible” and “honest” were by far the most desired values in employees (over 85 percent of the managers selected them), followed by “capable” (65 percent), “imaginative” (55 percent), and “logical” (49 percent). “Obedient,” “clean,” “polite,” were the least important, being selected by fewer than 10 percent of the managers. Different groups of people tend to differ in the val- ues they hold. For example, in other studies, business school students and professors tend to rate “ambition,” “capability,” “responsibility,” and “freedom” higher than people in general. They tend to place lower importance than people in general on concern and helpfulness to others, aesthetics and cultural values, and overcoming social injustice. In a study that com- pared highly successful, moderately successful, and unsuccessful managers, highly successful managers gave significantly higher scores to values relating to economic (for example, a comfortable life) and polit- ical values (for example, social recognition) than less successful managers. Values Maturity 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, each of which contains two stages. Table 1.2 summarizes the characteristics of each stage. In brief, the stages are sequential (for example, a person can’t progress to stage 3 before pass- ing through stage 2), and each stage represents a higher level of maturity. Kohlberg uses the terms preconvent- ional, conventional, and postconventional to describe these three levels. In the following discussion, we have chosen to use different terms that capture the domi- nant characteristics of each stage. The ﬁrst level of maturity, the self-centered level, includes the ﬁrst two stages of values development. Moral reasoning and instrumental values are based on personal needs or wants and on the consequences of an act. For example, something could be judged as right or good if it helped an individual obtain a reward or avoid Table 1.2 Classiﬁcation of Moral LEVEL BASIS OF MORAL JUDGMENT A PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL (SELF-CENTERED) Moral value resides in external factors, and consequences, not persons or relationships. B CONVENTIONAL LEVEL (CONFORMITY) Moral value resides in duty, maintaining social contracts, keeping commitments. C POSTCONVENTIONAL (PRINCIPLED) Moral value resides in commitment to freely selected standards, rights, and duties. SOURCE: Adapted from Kohlberg (1981). 70 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS judged on the basis of the internalized principles of the individual. That is, judgments are made on the basis of a set of principles or core values that have been developed from individual experience. In the highest stage of maturity, this set of principles prehensive (it covers all contingencies), consistent (it is never violated), and universal (it does not change with the situation or circumstance). Thus, stealing $50,000 and stealing $500 are still judged to be wrong, but the basis for the judgment is not the viola- tion of laws or rules; rather, it is the violation of a set of comprehensive, consistent, universal principles developed by the individual. Few individuals, accord- ing to Kohlberg, reach this highest level of maturity on a consistent basis. In short, self-centered individuals view rules and laws as outside themselves, but they obey because, by doing so, they may obtain rewards or avoid punish- ment. Conformist individuals view rules and laws as outside themselves, but they obey because they have learned and accepted those rules and laws, and they seek the respect of others. Principled individuals examine the rules and laws and develop a set of inter- nal principles that they believe are morally right. If there is a choice to be made between obeying a law or obeying a principle, they choose the principle. Internalized principles supersede rules and laws in prin- cipled individuals. To understand the different levels of values matu- rity, consider the following story used by Kohlberg (1969): In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charg- ing ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about $1,000, which was half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and begged him to sell the drug at a lower price or let him pay later. But the drug- gist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz grew desperate and began to think about breaking into the store to steal the drug for his wife. expectations. (For example, they might feel an obliga- tion to steal the drug for anyone because they value human life more than property.) Research on Kohlberg’s model of values develop- ment reveals some interesting findings that have relevance to managerial behavior. For example, moral judgment stories were administered to college students who had earlier participated in Milgram’s (1963) obedi- ence study. Under the guise of a reinforcement-learning experiment, Milgram’s subjects had been give increasingly intense electric shocks who was observed to be in great pain. Of dents at the principled level (stages 5 and 6), 75 per- cent refused to administer the shocks (i.e., to hurt someone), while only 12.5 percent of the respondents at the conformity level refused. Higher levels of values development were associated with more humane behavior toward other people. It should also be noted that Kohlberg’s model has been criticized by Carol Gilligan (1979, 1980, 1982, 1988) as containing a male bias. In her investigations of moral dilemmas among women, Gilligan indicated that women tend to value care, relationships, and commit- ment more highly than do males. The Kohlberg model, which tends to emphasize justice as the highest moral value, is more typical of males than females, she claimed. Whereas Gilligan’s criticisms are somewhat controversial among researchers, they are less relevant to our discus- sion here because of our emphasis on the development of internalized principles for guiding behavior, whatever their basis. For our purposes in this chapter, the debate about whether justice is a male value and caring is a female value is largely beside the point. Becoming more mature in values development requires that individuals develop a set of internalized principles by which they can govern their behavior. The development of those principles is enhanced and values maturity is increased as value-based issues are confronted, discussed, and thought about. Lickona (1976, p. 25) notes, “Simply increasing the amount of reciprocal communication that occurs among people is likely to enhance moral development.” To help you determine your own level of values maturity, an instrument developed by James Rest at the University of Minnesota’s Moral Research Center was included in the Assessment section. It has been used extensively in research because it is easier to adminis- ter than Kohlberg’s method for assessing maturity. According to Kohlberg (1976, p. 47), “Rest’s approach does give a rough estimate of an individual’s moral matu- rity level.” Rather than placing a person on one single level of values maturity, it identiﬁes the stage that the 72 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS against the company was dwarfed by the actual claims, and the company ﬁled Chapter 11. E. F. Hutton, General Dynamics, General Electric, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Tyco, Lockheed, Bank of Boston, Dow Corning, and a host of other ﬁrms have also been in the news for violat- ing ethical principles. One cartoon that seems to summa- rize these goings-on shows a group of executives sitting at a conference table. The leader remarks, “Of course, honesty is one of the better policies.” Corporate behavior that exempliﬁes unethical deci- sion making is not our principal concern here. More to the point is a study by the American Management Association that included 3,000 managers in the United States. It reported that most individual managers felt they were under pressure to compromise personal stan- dards to meet company goals (Harris & Sutton, 1995). Moreover, most individuals have encountered some- one else violating ethical standards, but in a majority of cases, nothing is reported. For example, in a survey of federal employees asked whether they had observed any of the following activities in the last year, more than 50 percent answered yes to seeing: stealing funds, stealing property, accepting bribes, sexual harassment, ineligible people receiving funds, deﬁcient goods or services, use of position for personal beneﬁt, taking unfair advantage of a contractor, serious violation of the law. More than two thirds did not report what they saw. As an illustration, consider the following true incident (names have been changed). How would you respond? Why? Dale Monson, a top manufacturing manager at Satellite Telecommunications, walked into the ofﬁce of Al Lake, the head of quality con- trol. Dale was carrying an assembled part that was to be shipped to a customer on the West Coast. Dale handed Al the part and said, “Look Al, this part is in perfect shape elec- tronically, but the case has a gouge in it. I’ve seen engineering and they say that the mark doesn’t affect form, ﬁt, or function. Marketing says the customer won’t mind because they are just going to bury the unit anyway. We can’t rework it, and it would cost $75,000 to make new cases. We will only do 23 units, and they’re already made. The parts are due to be shipped at the end of the week.” Al responded, “Well, what do you want from me?” “Just sign off so we can move forward,” said Dale. “Since you’re the one who needs to certify acceptable quality, I thought I’d better get this straightened out now rather than waiting until the last minute before shipping.” following chapter on stress and time management. Moreover, as Figure 1.1 illustrates, when problems arise in personal management, the easily recognized symptoms are often time pressures or experienced stress. However, those symptoms are often linked to more fundamental problems with self-awareness and out-of-balance priorities so we begin with a focus on enhancing knowledge of oneself. Despite the research cited above, students of human behavior have long known that knowledge of oneself— self-awareness, self-insight, self-understanding—is essen- tial to one’s productive personal and interpersonal functioning, and in understanding and empathizing with other people. A host of techniques and methods for achieving self-knowledge have long been available— including group methods, meditation techniques, altered consciousness procedures, aromatherapy, assorted massages, physical exercise regimens, and biofeedback. It is estimated that Americans alone spend between $30 billion and $50 billion on such therapies. In this chapter we do not summarize those various approaches to enhanced self-awareness, nor do we espouse any one procedure in par-ticular. Instead, our objective is to help you understand the importance of self-awareness if you are to be a suc-cessful manager—or a successful individual—and to provide you with some powerful self-assessment instruments that are related to managerial success. Our emphasis is on scientiﬁcally validated infor- mation linking self-awareness to the behavior of managers, and we try to avoid generalizations that have not been tested in research. Skills Tactical Managing Stress Managing Time Setting Priorities and Goals Self-Awareness Strategic DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 57 ourselves by repression and similar defenses, which are essentially techniques by which we avoid becoming conscious of unpleasantness or dangerous truths. “Hatred 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 “deny- ing of our best side, of our talents, of our ﬁnest impulses, of our highest potentialities, of our creativeness. In brief, this is the struggle against our own greatness” (Maslow, 1962, p. 58). Freud (1956) asserted that to be com- pletely honest with oneself is the best effort an individ- ual can make, because complete honesty requires a con- tinual 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? How can management skills be devel- oped if the self-knowledge necessary for the develop- ment of those skills is resisted? self-concept, We can- THE SENSITIVE LINE One answer relies on the concept of the sensitive line. This concept refers to the point at which individ- uals become defensive or protective when encounter- ing information about themselves that is inconsistent with their self-concept or when encountering pressure to alter their behavior. Most people regularly experi- ence information about themselves that doesn’t quite fit or that is marginally inconsistent. For example, a friend might say, “You look tired today. Are you feeling okay?” If you are feeling ﬁne, the information is incon- sistent with your self-awareness. But because the dis- crepancy is relatively minor, it would not be likely to offend you or evoke a strong defensive reaction. That is, it would probably not require that you reexamine and change your self-concept. On the other hand, the more discrepant the infor- mation or the more serious its implications for your self- concept, the closer it would approach your sensitive line, and you would feel a need to defend yourself against it. For example, having a coworker judge you incompetent as a manager may cross your sensitive line A second answer to the problem of overcoming resistance to self-examination 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: In order to know oneself, no amount of intro- spection or self-examination will sufﬁce. You can analyze yourself for weeks, or meditate for months, and you will not get an inch further— any more than you can smell your own breath or laugh when you tickle yourself. You must ﬁrst be open to the other per- son before you catch a glimmering of yourself. 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. As you engage in the practice exercises in this chap- ter, therefore, you are encouraged to discuss your insights with someone else. A lack of self-disclosure not only inhibits self-awareness but also may affect adversely other aspects of managerial skill development. For example, several studies have shown that low self- disclosers are less healthy and more self-alienated than high self-disclosers. College students give the highest rat- ings for interpersonal competence to high self-disclosers. Individuals who are high self-disclosers are liked best, and excessive or insufﬁcient self-disclosure results in less liking and acceptance by others (see, for example, Covey, 1989; Goleman, 1998b; Kelley, 1999). Some of the exercises in this chapter will require you to discuss your experiences with others. This is because involving others in the process of self- understanding will be a critical aspect of your personal growth. These interactions, of course, should be sin- cere, honest, and motivated by self-understanding and self-improvement. Never should the information you share or receive be used to judge or wound another person. Maintaining a trusting relationship with some- one with whom you can share is a critical prerequisite to self-understanding. The enigma of self-awareness can be managed, then, by exercising some control over when and what kind of information you receive about yourself, and by DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 59 cess is attributed to charisma, intelligence, or style. We feel we are somehow diminished and less able because of what we see in others. Self-knowledge allows us to recognize our own special gifts and strengths and to capitalize on our talents. Diagnosing fundamental differences in others is, similarly, an important part of being an effective manager. Being aware of, and empathetic toward, the different perspectives, needs, and inclinations of other people is a key part of emotional intelligence and inter- personal maturity. Most people, however, have a tendency to interact with individuals who are like themselves, to choose similar people to work with them, and to exclude others who seem to be different (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). The history of human warfare and conﬂict testiﬁes to the fact that differences are usually interpreted as frightening or threatening. However, although fostering similarity seemingly makes it easier to interact with other people, especially in a work setting, it also reduces creativity, complex problem solving, and the likelihood that working col- leagues will challenge the perspective of the authority figure. Research on organizational failure has repeat- edly demonstrated that a lack of diversity in the composition of key decision-making bodies makes it dif- ﬁcult for them to recognize changes in their environ- ment and to respond in appropriately new and novel ways (Cameron, Kim, & Whetten, 1987). One key to helping individuals feel comfortable discussing ways in which they are different is by sharing a commitment to focusing on differences not distinctions. We observe differences; we create distinc- it is not difﬁcult to tions. Differences help us understand potential sources of misunderstanding between people and give us clues for how we can work together more effectively. Distinctions create social barriers between people for the express purpose of creating (or reinforcing) advan- tages and disadvantages. When someone discounts the opinion of a coworker, for example, on the grounds that the person is “a member of the old boys’ club,” “from marketing,” “a woman,” or “doesn’t have a college degree,” he or she is creating a distinction that is not only potentially hurtful on a personal basis but ineffective for the organization. The creation of such distinctions destroys trust among people, even if the distinctions refer to individu- als who are not present. If you were to apply distinctions that belittled someone in another group, for example, that action plants a seed of mistrust in the minds of people who are present regarding what distinctions you may be privately using to discount them. The point is, recognizing differences is not the same as evaluating Rhee, 2000; Goleman, 1998a). 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). One study, for example, tried to identify differences between star performers and average managers in 40 companies. Emotional intelligence competencies, including self-awareness, were twice as important in contributing to excellence as cognitive intelligence (IQ) and expertise (Goleman, 1998a). In a study of a multinational consulting firm, superior performing partners were compared to average performing part- ners. Superior performers—who had significantly higher emotional intelligence and self-awareness scores—contributed more than twice the revenues to the firm and were four times more likely to be promoted than those with low self-awareness and emotional intelligence (Boyatzis, 1998). 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, p. 2). That is, all other attitudes, orienta- tions, and behaviors arise out of an individuals’ values. Two major types of values are considered: instrumental and terminal (Rokeach, 1973). We present research ﬁnd- ings that relate personal development in these two types of values to successful managerial performance. The assessment instrument that assesses your values develop- ment is discussed, along with information concerning the scores of other groups of people. You will want to compare your scores with individuals who are close to you, as well as with successful managers. Some compar- ison data is provided for that purpose. Because this dis- cussion of values development is connected to ethical decision making, the implications of managerial ethics are also discussed in this section. 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). A large number of dimensions of cognitive style have been iden- tiﬁed, but we have selected an instrument in this chapter that captures the most frequently studied dimensions (Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007). A discussion of the critical dimensions of cognitive style is presented, and it will assist you in learning more about your own style based on the assessment instrument that you have completed. Empirical research linking cognitive style to successful managerial behavior is also discussed. DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 61 uncovers levels of self-esteem, self-efﬁcacy, emotional stability, and self-control that have important effects on individuals’ happiness as well as managerial effective- ness. Figure 1.2 summarizes these ﬁve aspects of self- awareness, along with their functions in deﬁning the self-concept. Again, many other aspects of self-awareness could be considered in this chapter, but all these aspects of the self are related fundamentally to the ﬁve core concepts discussed here. What we value, how we feel about our- selves, how we behave toward others, what we want to achieve, and what we are attracted to all are strongly inﬂuenced by our emotional intelligence, values, cogni- tive style, orientation toward change, and core self- evaluation. These are among the most important build- ing blocks upon which other aspects of the self emerge. On the other hand, if you want to do a more in-depth analysis of multiple aspects of self-awareness, instruments such as the Strong-Campbell Vocational Inventory, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Stanford- Binet Intelligence Test, and a host of other instruments are available in most college counseling centers or test- ing centers. Be careful, however, of the multiple assess- ment instruments you can find on numerous Web sites. Most are not reliable or valid. On the other hand, no one, it should be emphasized, can get too much self-knowledge. cre- 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 mea- surement have become very confusing and ambiguous. Emotional intelligence has come to encompass almost everything that is noncognitive—including social, emo- tional, behavioral, attitudinal, and personality factors— so the extent to which it can be adequately measured and predictive of outcomes remains cloudy. Since the publication of Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence in 1995, interest in the concept of emo- tional intelligence has mushroomed (even though the concept was introduced in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer). Several thousand books have been published on the topic, and scores of consulting companies and executive coaches now advertise themselves as experts in helping others develop emotional intelligence. The number of instruments available to assess emotional intelligence is voluminous (more than 100), although only three or four have been scientiﬁcally validated and used in any systematic investigations. Core Self-Evaluation Identifies underlying personality attributes Values Identifies personal standards and moral judgment Cognitive Style Identifies information acquisition and evaluation described above, the concept of emotional intelligence has been defined as embracing almost everything. A scan of the scientific and popular writing on emo- tional intelligence confirms this conclusion—almost everything and anything is defined as an aspect of emotional intelligence. Our colleagues Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman, for example—two of the chief researchers in the field of emotional intelligence— explicitly include all capabilities that help people manage themselves and others. These include, for example, leadership, inﬂuence, conﬂict management, communication, self-conﬁdence, and teamwork. Other scholars limit emotional intelligence to a much nar- rower set of factors. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1998) for example, reduce emotional intelligence to the ability to adequately diagnose and react to emotions. One way to clarify this problem of multiple deﬁni- tions is to differentiate between emotional intelligence and emotional competence. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to diagnose, understand, and man- age emotional cues. Emotional competence refers to the noncognitive capabilities and skills—including social skills—that affect human functioning. The ﬁrst DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 63 blow up and lose control, less likely to experience debilitating depression and anxiety, and more likely to manage their own emotional states than those with less emotional intelligence. Think of how you behave in a sporting event, for example, when the officials make a bad call; when someone gets angry at you and berates you; when you are criticized for something you did; or, alternatively, when you receive special acco- lades and recognition. Emotionally intelligent people remain in control of their emotions, whereas less emo- tionally intelligent people lose control. This ability does not mean being bland or even-tempered all the time— emotionally intelligent people may display a wide range of emotions and intensity. Instead, it means that a person can control his or her emotions so that they are not unrestrained. Emotionally intelligent people are also able to accurately diagnose and empathize with the feelings of others. They are sensitive to what others are experienc- ing, and they can share in those feelings. Empathy refers to the ability to understand and connect with others’ feelings. It does not mean sympathizing or adopting the same feelings, and it is not based on a memory of having experienced the same emotions. If someone has experi- enced a tragedy or loss, for example, emotionally intelli- gent people can empathize, share in, and understand those feelings even if they have never experienced something similar. They need not be depressed them- selves, for example, in order to understand the depres- sion of others. Emotionally intelligent people also respond appro- priately to the emotions of others. Their responses match the intensity of the emotions other people feel, and they support and encourage emotional expres- sions. That is, if others are excited and happy, they do not remain aloof and withdrawn. They endorse the expression of emotions in others, rather than suppress- ing or censoring those emotions. On the other hand, they are not merely manipulated in their feelings and responses by the emotions of others. They don’t respond merely on the basis of others’ feelings. Rather, they remain in personal control of their responses. They advance a sense of caring for, and acceptance of, the other person by means of their emotional responses. One reason emotional intelligence is so important is that general competency levels seem to have dete- riorated over time. Whereas average IQ points have increased almost 25 points over the last 100 years— people tend to be smarter now than 100 years ago— emotional intelligence scores have actually declined (Goleman, 1998a). Think, for example, of the amount of litigation, conflict, disrespect, and divorce that emotional intelligence, 41 percent of the high emotional intelligence group had been promoted after two years whereas only 10 percent of the low emotional intelli- gence partners had been promoted. More importantly, high emotional intelligence partners contributed more than twice as much revenue to the company as did the low emotional intelligence partners (Boyatzis, 1982). The point should be clear: effective managers have developed high levels of competency in emotional intelligence. The Emotional Intelligence Assessment instru- ment that you completed in the Pre-assessment section provides an evaluation of your competency in the four general areas of emotional intelligence—emotional awareness, emotional control or balance, emotional diag- nosis or empathy, and emotional response. Of course, a fully accurate and valid measure of these factors would require an instrument many times longer than the one included here, so this assessment merely pro- vides a glimpse or an incomplete evaluation of your emotional intelligence capability. Your scores should help you identify areas of strength but also motivate you to pursue the development of your emotional intelli- gence. This may effectively be done by consciously prac- ticing emotional diagnosis, control, and response in yourself and others, but, especially, it may also be signiﬁc- antly enhanced by learning, and improving the skills discussed in this book. They are, according to a variety of writers (e.g., Goleman, 1998b; Boyatzis et al., 2000), critical components of the broad deﬁnition of emotional intelligence. VALUES Values are among the most stable and enduring char- acteristics of individuals. They are the foundation upon which attitudes and personal preferences are formed. They are the basis for crucial decisions, life directions, and personal tastes. They help deﬁne our morality and our conceptions of what is “good.” Much of what we are is a product of the basic values we have developed throughout our lives. The trouble with values, unfortunately, is that they are taken for granted, and people are often unaware of them. Unless a person’s values are challenged, the values being held remain largely undetected. People especially are not aware that they hold some values as being more important than others. This unawareness leads to actions or behaviors that are sometimes contrary to values, or even to confusion about values. Until people encounter a contradiction or a threat to their basic values, they seldom articulate their values or seek to clarify them. DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 65 predicting the values each of us hold ourselves. At least some of our values are affected significantly by the country and culture in which we are raised. been widely The ﬁrst is Cultural Values Trompenaars (1996; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998) identiﬁed seven value dimensions upon which significant differences exist among national cultures. Data are based upon 30,000 managers in 55 countries, and results show that certain cultures emphasize some values more than others do. Table 1.1 identifies Trompenaars’ seven dimensions, and we provide examples of countries that represent each of the value dimensions. No national culture emphasizes one of these dimensions to the exclusion of another, but there are clear differences in the amount of emphasis placed on each dimension. The ﬁrst ﬁve dimensions of the model refer to how individuals relate to other people. For example, some EXPLANATION EXAMPLE OF COUNTRIES WITH DOMINANCE Societal rules and norms are valued. United States, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden Individual relationships are valued. Korea, Venezuela, China, Indonesia Individual contributions are valued. United States, Nigeria, Denmark, Austria Team contributions are valued. Mexico, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines Showing emotions is valued. Iran, Spain, France, Switzerland Unemotional responses are valued. Korea, Ethiopia, China, Japan Segregating life’s roles is valued. Holland, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom Integrating life’s role is valued. China, Nigeria, Singapore, Korea Personal accomplishment is valued. United States, Norway, Canada, Austria Inherent attributes are valued. Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Czech Republic Past is tightly connected to future. France, Japan, United Kingdom Future is disconnected but valued. United States, Holland Individual control is valued. United States, Canada, Austria, United Kingdom Control comes from outside forces. Czech Republic, Japan, Egypt, China (1998). “Riding the waves of culture.” Reprinted with the permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies. slighted, offended, or angry—how likely would you be to display your feelings openly in public? Managers in Japan, Ethiopia, and Hong Kong, for example, average 64 percent, 74 percent, and 81 percent respectively in refusing to show emotions publicly. On the other hand, 15 percent of Kuwait managers, 18 percent of Egyptian managers, and 19 percent of Spanish managers would refuse. (The United States score is 43 percent.) A fourth dimension—specific versus diffuse— describes the difference between cultures that segre- gate the different roles in life so as to maintain privacy and personal autonomy compared to cultures that inte- grate and merge their roles. Cultures with speciﬁc val- ues separate work relationships from family relation- ships, for example, whereas diffuse cultures entangle work and home relationships. People with speciﬁc val- ues may seem hard to get to know because they keep a boundary between their personal lives and their work lives. People with diffuse values may seem too forward and too superﬁcial because they seem to share personal information freely. Interestingly, diffuse cultures have lower turnover rates among employees and higher degrees of loyalty to an employer because work and personal relationships are more intertwined. To illus- trate the difference, how would you respond to this question: Your boss asks you to come to her home to help her paint her house. You don’t want to do it since you hate painting. Would you refuse? More than 90 percent of the Dutch and Swedes would refuse, whereas only 32 percent of the Chinese and 46 percent of Nigerians would refuse. (In the United States, 82 percent would refuse.) A ﬁfth value dimension differentiates cultures that emphasize an achievement orientation versus an ascription culture. People tend to acquire high status based on their personal accomplishments in some cul- tures, whereas in other cultures status and prestige are based more on ascribed characteristics such as age, gender, family heritage, or ethnic background. Who you know (ascription) versus what you can do (achievement) helps identify the difference on this value dimension. For example, the following statement helps highlight achievement versus ascription value differences: It is important to act the way you are, to be consistent with your true self, even if you do not accomplish the task at hand. Only 10 percent of managers from Uruguay, 12 percent from Argentina, and 13 percent from Spain disagree with the statement, whereas 77 percent of Norwegians and 75 percent of managers from the United States disagree. A sixth value dimension relates to how people interpret and manage time. It distinguishes the emphasis DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 67 being aware of value differences, and being able to diagnose and manage those differences, is an impor- tant prerequisite for success in the twenty-first cen- tury. Of course, stereotyping people based on their national culture, or overgeneralizing based on trends such as those reported here, can be dangerous and misleading. None of us would like to be pigeonholed based on a general country proﬁle. These dimensions, as you will see, are most useful for increasing sensitiv- ity and helping with diagnosis rather than to place people in categories. Like countries, organizations, too, have value sys- tems, referred to as an organizational culture. Research has found that employees who hold values that are congruent with their organization’s values are more productive and satisfied (Cable & Judge, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Nwachukwu & Vitell, 1997; Posner & Kouzes, 1993). Holding values that are inconsistent with company values, on the other hand, is a major source of frustration, conﬂict, and nonpro- ductivity. Being aware of your own priorities and val- ues, the values of your organization, and the general value priorities of your country, are important if you expect to achieve compatibility at work and in a long- term career (Fisher, Macrosson, & Yusuff, 1996; Lobel, 1992). We will not spend time here discussing the var- ious models available for assessing organizational cul- ture. If you are interested in this topic, see Cameron and Quinn (2006). are in con- presume that Personal Values Rokeach (1973) argued that the total number of values people possess is relatively small and that all individu- als 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 val- ues were identiﬁed by Rokeach, and independent pri- ority ratings have been found to exist for each type (that is, the two sets of values are largely unrelated). One general type of values is labeled instrumental, or means-oriented; the other type is terminal, or ends- oriented. Instrumental values prescribe desirable standards of conduct or methods for attaining an end. Two types of instrumental values relate to morality and compe- tence. Violating moral values (for example, behaving wrongly) causes feelings of guilt, while violating compe- tence values (for example, behaving incapably) brings about feelings of shame. Terminal values prescribe desirable ends or goals for the individual. There are fewer of them, according Compared to the population in general, managers place substantially more value on “sense of accomplish- ment,” “self-respect,” “a comfortable life,” and “indepen- dence.” The instrumental value managers held highest for themselves, in fact, was “ambition”; their highest held terminal value was “sense of accomplishment.” In other words, personal values (rather than social values) and those oriented toward achievement predominate among managers (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Cable & Judge, 1996; Cavanaugh, 1980; Clare & Sanford, 1979). In the population in general, one study found that “openness to experience”—that is, a combination of a positive emphasis on broadmindedness, imagination, freedom, and self-direction coupled with a negative emphasis on recognition, obedience, and conformity— was the dominating value held by most people (Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni, 1996). Interestingly, no gen- der differences have been found on the Rokeach instru- ment (Johnston, 1995). These value preferences may explain why busi- ness students and even managers themselves have been criticized for being too self-centered and impa- tient for personal achievement and promotion (see Introduction). A balance of personal values and social values, such as justice and helpfulness, may character- ize a more adaptable manager in the future. Simply esteeming certain personal and achievement- oriented values does not mean, of course, that one will be a successful manager. On the other hand, it is clear that values do affect individual behavior. For example, sharing values among team members, as well as compatibility of instrumental and terminal values among team members, was found to be associated with signiﬁcantly more effec- tive teams (Fisher et al., 1996). More importantly, several authors have argued that the behavior displayed by indi- and “forgiving” viduals (that is, the means used to achieve their valued ends) is a product of their level of values maturity (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969; Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990). Individuals differ in their level of values development, according to these authors, so different sets of instrumental values are held by individuals at different stages of development. 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 develop- ment possess a qualitatively different set of instrumental values than individuals who are at less mature levels. This theory of values maturity or moral development has received a great deal of attention from researchers, and research ﬁndings have some important implications for self-awareness and managerial effectiveness. Therefore, we shall discuss in some detail this notion of values maturity. DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 69 punishment and if the consequences were not negative for someone else. Stealing $50,000 is worse than steal- ing $500 in the self-centered level because the conse- quences (that is, the losses) are more negative for some- one else. The second level, or conformity level, includes stages 3 and 4. Moral reasoning is based on conforming to and upholding the conventions and expectations of society. This level is sometimes referred to as the “law and order” level because the emphasis is on conformity to laws and norms. Right and wrong are judged on the basis of whether or not behaviors conform to the rules of those in authority. Respect from others based on obe- dience is a prized outcome. Stealing $50,000 and steal- ing $500 are equally wrong in this level because both violate the law. Most American adults function at this level of values maturity. Third is the principled level. It includes the ﬁnal two stages of maturity and represents the most mature level of moral reasoning and the most mature set of instrumental values. Right and wrong are Judgment into Stages of Development STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT 1. Punishment and Obedience Right is determined by avoiding punishment and not breaking an authority’s rules. 2. Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange Right is meeting one’s own immediate interests, and what is fair or equal for others. 3. Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity Right is being concerned about others’ feelings and maintaining trust by keeping expectations and commitments. The Golden Rule is relevant. 4. Social System and Conscience Maintenance Right is doing one’s duty to society and upholding the social order. 5. Prior Rights and Social Contract or Utility Right is upholding the rights, values, and contracts of others in society; moral behavior is freely chosen. 6. Universal Ethical Principles Right is guided by internal, universal ethical principles. When laws violate principles, the laws are ignored. Now answer the following questions in reaction to the story: YES NO ______ ______ 1. Would it be wrong for Heinz is com- to break into the store? ______ ______ 2. Did the druggist have the right to charge that much for the product? ______ ______ 3. Did Heinz have an obligation to steal the drug for his wife? ______ ______ 4. What if Heinz and his wife did not get along? Should Heinz steal the drug for her? ______ ______ 5. Suppose Heinz’s best friend were dying of cancer, rather than Heinz’s wife. Should Heinz steal the drug for his friend? ______ ______ 6. Suppose the person dying was not personally close to Heinz. Should Heinz steal the drug? ______ ______ 7. Suppose Heinz read in the paper about a woman dying of cancer. Should he steal the drug for her? ______ ______ 8. Would you steal the drug to save your own life? ______ ______ 9. Suppose Heinz was caught breaking in and brought before a judge. Should he be sentenced to jail? For individuals in the self-centered level of matu- rity, stealing the drug might be justiﬁed because Heinz’s wife had instrumental value: she could provide compan- ionship, help rear the children, and so on. A stranger, however, would not have the same instrumental value for Heinz, so it would be wrong to steal the drug for a stranger. Individuals in the conformity level would base their judgments on the closeness of the relationship and on law and authority. Heinz has an obligation to steal for family members, according to this reasoning, but not for nonfamily members. A governing principle is whether or not an action is against the law (or society’s expectations). Principled individuals base their judg- ments on a set of universal, comprehensive, and consis- tent principles. They may answer any question yes or no, but their reasoning will be based on their own inter- nal principles, not on externally imposed standards or DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1 71 person relies on most. That is, it assumes that individuals use more than one level of maturity (or set of instrumen- tal values), but that one level generally predominates. By completing this instrument, therefore, you will identify your predominant level of values maturity. To determine your maturity level, refer to the self-scoring instructions in the Appendix at the end of this chapter. An exercise in the Skill Practice section will help you develop or reﬁne principles at the stage 5 and stage 6 level of maturity. directed to to a person the respon- ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND VALUES In addition to its beneﬁts for self-understanding, aware- ness 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 execu- tives are dishonest, overly proﬁt-oriented, and willing to step on other people to get what they want (Andrews, 1989; Harris & Sutton, 1995; Lozano, 1996). Although 9 out of 10 companies have a written code of ethics, evidence exists to support public perceptions that these documents are not influential in assuring high moral conduct. In December 2001, Enron, the seventh largest U.S. corporation at the time, declared bankruptcy. Tragically, a once great company has become a synonym for man- agerial greed and corporate fraud. The Enron debacle spawned more than 30 major pieces of legislation designed to clamp down on ﬁnancial loopholes exploited by Enron executives, as well as numerous books and articles criticizing Enron-like unethical business practices (Elliott & Schroth, 2002; Mitchell, 2002). While Enron was arguably one of the largest corpo- rate scandals in U.S. history, it is hardly the only lapse of ethical judgment staining the image of business. Martha Stewart’s insider trading transaction, for example, netted her less than $50,000 in personal wealth but cost her ﬁrm billions of dollars in lost stock value. Ford Motor Company refused to alter the dangerous gas tank on the Pinto in order to save $11 per car. It cost Ford millions of dollars in lawsuits and cost many people their lives. Equity Funding tried to hide 64,000 phony insurance claims, but went bankrupt when the truth came out. Firestone denied that its 500-series tire was defective, but eventually took losses in the millions when the accident reports were publicized. A. H. Robins knew of problems with its Dalkon Shield for years before inform- ing the public. The billion dollars set aside for lawsuits Would you ship the part or not? Discuss this with your class members. Generate a recommendation for Al. This case exempliﬁes the major values conﬂict faced over and over again by managers. It is a conﬂict between maximizing the economic performance of the organiza- tion (as indicated by revenues, costs, proﬁts, and so forth) or the social performance of the organization (as indicated by obligations to customers, employees, suppli- ers, and so forth). Most ethical trade-offs are conﬂicts between these two desirable ends: economic versus social performance (Hosmer, 2003). Making these kinds of decisions effectively is not merely a matter of selecting between right and wrong alternatives or between good and bad choices. Most of these choices are between right and right or between one good and another. Individuals who effectively manage these kinds of ethical trade-offs are those who have a clear sense of their own values and who have developed a principled level of moral maturity. They have articulated and clari- ﬁed their own internal set of universal, comprehensive, and consistent principles upon which to base their deci- sions. It is seldom the case, of course, that a manager could choose economic performance goals every time or that he or she could choose social performance goals every time. Trade-offs are inevitable. It is not a simple matter, on the other hand, to gen- erate a personal set of universal, comprehensive, and consistent principles that can guide decision making. According to Kohlberg’s research, most adults have nei- ther constructed, nor do they follow, a well-developed set of principles in making decisions. One reason is that they have no model or example of what such principles might be. We offer some standards against which to test your own principles for making moral or ethical choices. These standards are neither comprehensive nor absolute, nor are they independent of one another. They simply serve as reference against which to test the principles that you include in your personal values statement. ❏ Front page test: Would I be embarrassed if my decision became a headline in the local news- paper? Would I feel comfortable describing my actions or decision to a customer or stock- holder? ❏ 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 curt

Document Details

Tags

Related

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue