Upload
sacs-consulting
View
457
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Visit our website: http://www.sacsconsult.com.au/ Vist us on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/sacs-consulting
Citation preview
Measurement and management of values.
Andrew MartyManaging DirectorSACS Consulting
SACS Consulting
• Human Resource Management Consulting Firm– Executive Search and Selection.– Human Resource Management Consulting.
The Science of People Management
Offerings
Objectives
• To answer the question “what are values?”• To examine the research world – what do we
know about values?• To consider how they relate to individual
variability such as personality• To consider whether they matter – do they affect
the outcomes of organisations?• Where to from here – what does this all mean?
Nature and Nurture
What are values?
• Values exist at multiple levels:– Individual– Collective – organisational, geographical (city, state,
nation)• Personal values are “desirable, trans-situational goals
that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (Sagiv, Schwartz and Arieli, 2011
• At the collective level (national, organisational, etc) values are “widely shared, abstract ideas about what is good, right and desirable (Williams, 1970).
• Naturally, personal and collective values interact heavily.
The stated values of organisations
Organisation values – 40 of Australia’s top 200 companies
Value Descriptor examples % Respondents
Integrity
We will stand by our word ensuring a reputation as a highly professional team delivering on commitments to all stakeholders
62.50%Always being responsible and doing the right thing
We build trust in our relationships through honest and ethical behavior
Performance
Achievement
57.50%Excellence
Results Driven
Teamwork
Team Spirit
55.00%Being one company, one diverse team
We are one team with one vision. We work together, encourage diversity and respect the unique contribution of each individual
RespectProfessional
42.50%Respectful
Do values statements make a difference?
• Not much. Studies which have looked into the difference in effectiveness, staff turnover, etc have found very modest differences between orgs which have values statements and those which do not
• There is a vast difference versus stated values and real values. It is the real values which matter.
Desmidt, S., Prinzie, A., & Decramer, A. (2011). Looking for the value of mission statements: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research,
Management Decision, 49(3), 468-483.
Mirror neurons, yawning, and emotional contagion
Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/
The empirical measurement of values.
• Professor Shalom Schwartz• Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem• One of the world’s leading
researchers in values• Developed values assessment
instruments at the individual and national levels
• European social survey (n is often more than 500,000!)
The truth about values - national
Cultural Value Orientations
Figure 4. Cultural Map of World Regions
MASTERY
West
Europe
INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY
EGALITARIANISM
English Speaking
AFFECTIVE AUTONOMY
HARMONY
HIERARCHY
Muslim
Middle
East &
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Latin America
South &
South East Asia
EMBEDDEDNESS
East-Central & Baltic Europe
Prot/Cath
The world simplified
The truth about values – individual
Basic Individual Values
SELF ENHANCEMENT
OPENNESS TO CHANGE
SELF TRANSCENDENCE
CONSERVATION
POWER
ACHIEVEMENT
HEDONISM
STIMULATION
SELF DIRECTIONUNIVERSALISM
BENEVOLENCE
SECURITYTR
ADIT
ION
CONFORMITY
SACS Consulting 2012 study into values, personality, and counterproductive work behaviours.
Key points:
• N = 1248• 661 male participants• 587 female participants• Average age of participants = 45 years• Average salary of participants = $125,200 p.a.• Candidates on our employee database• All participants completed Shalom Schwartz’s
Individual Values Survey as well as questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and the personality dimensions as assessed by HEXACO personality inventory.
Australian professional norms…..
• We now have a normative sample for values among professionals
• We are in a position to offer an online version of the Schwartz individual values measures to client organisations.
Can personality predict values?
Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO
1: Honesty-Humility
• Sincerity
• Fairness
• Greed Avoidance
• Modesty
2: Emotionality
• Fearfulness
• Anxiety
• Dependence
• Sentimentality
3: Extraversion
• Social Self-Esteem
• Social Boldness
• Sociability
• Liveliness
4: Agreeableness
• Forgiveness
• Gentleness
• Flexibility
• Patience
5: Conscientiousness
• Organization
• Diligence
• Perfectionism
• Prudence
6: Openness to Experience
• Aesthetic Appreciation
• Inquisitiveness
• Creativity
• Unconventionality
7: (Interstitial scale)
• Altruism
Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321-1354.
Personality predicting Power
(HH) Sincerity(HH) Fairness(HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty(EMO) Fearfulness(EMO) Anxiety(EMO) Dependence(EMO) Sentimentality(EX) Social Self-Esteem(EX) Social Boldness(EX) Sociability(EX) Liveliness(A) Forgiveness(A) Gentleness(A) Flexibility (A) Patience(C) Organisation(C) Diligence(C) Perfectionism(C) Prudence(O) Aesthetic Appreciation(O) Inquisitiveness(O) Creativity(O) UnconventionalityAltruism
Power
Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
1 .739a .545 .536 .55436
Best predictors of Power Standardised Beta weights(HH) Greed Avoidance -.360Altruism -.176(HH) Modesty -.165(A) Flexibility -.127(HH) Sincerity -.102
Personality predicting Values
Power
Universa
lism
Conformity
Self D
irecti
on
Stimulati
on
Hedonism
Achieve
ment
Secu
rity
Benovelence
Tradition
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%53.60%
42.10%
36.30%
29.70% 29.70%25.80% 25.00%
18.00% 17.50%
12.10%
Can values predict counterproductive work behaviours?
More recent research into CWBs – employees or employer………
• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common:1. Lateness – unpunctuality
2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so
3. Inability to get on with others
4. Being distracted from core work tasks
5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others
6. Theft of organisation property
7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices
8. Being openly critical of the employer
9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices
10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employeesGruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 0-42
Values predicting Interpersonal Counterproductive Work Behaviours
AchievementBenevolenceConformityHedonismPowerSecuritySelf DirectionStimulationTraditionUniversalism
Interpersonal CWBs
Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
1 .445a .198 .191 .46129
Best predictors of Interpersonal CWBs
Standardised Beta weights
Conformity -.287Power .285Self Direction .143Universalism -.120Achievement -.100
Values predicting Organisational Counterproductive Work Behaviours
AchievementBenevolenceConformityHedonismPowerSecuritySelf DirectionStimulationTraditionUniversalism
Organisational CWBs
Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
1 .338a .114 .107 .42973
Best predictors of Organisational CWBs
Standardised Beta weights
Conformity -.196Hedonism .172Benevolence -.136Stimulation -.124Power .105
Values predicting Total Counterproductive Work Behaviours
AchievementBenevolenceConformityHedonismPowerSecuritySelf DirectionStimulationTraditionUniversalism
Total CWBs
Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
1 .426a .181 .175 .38295
Best predictors of Total CWBs Standardised Beta weights
Conformity -.280Power .230Benevolence -.111Self Direction .106
Prediction of Interpersonal Counterproductive Work Behaviours: Personality vs Values
Personality (HEXACO) Schwartz Individual Values Measure
R2 .301 R2 .198
Adjusted R2 .293 Adjusted R2 .191
Standardised Facet Beta Weights: Standardised Value Beta Weights:
• (EX) Sociability -.182 • Conformity -.287
• (A) Forgiveness -.164 • Power .285
• (HH) Fairness -.124 • Self Direction .143
• (A) Flexibility -.109 • Universalism -.120
• (A) Patience -.105 • Achievement -.100
Prediction of Organisational Counterproductive Work Behaviours: Personality vs Values
Personality (HEXACO) Schwartz Individual Values Measure
R2 .406 R2 .114
Adjusted R2 .399 Adjusted R2 .107
Standardised Facet Beta Weights: Standardised Value Beta Weights:
• (HH) Fairness -.238 • Conformity -.196
• (C) Diligence -.163 • Hedonism .172
• (C) Prudence -.158 • Benevolence -.136
• (C) Organisation -.157 • Stimulation -.124
• Power .105
Prediction of Total Counterproductive Work Behaviours: Personality vs Values
Personality (HEXACO) Schwartz Individual Values Measure
R2 .427 R2 .181
Adjusted R2 .420 Adjusted R2 .175
Standardised Facet Beta Weights: Standardised Value Beta Weights:
• (HH) Fairness -.219 • Conformity -.280
• (C) Prudence -.141 • Power .230
• (C) Organization -.116 • Benevolence -.111
• (A) Forgiveness -.112 • Self Direction .106
• (C) Diligence -.112
• (A) Flexibility -.109
• (EX) Sociability -.106
• (HH) Sincerity -.100
Conclusions?
• Values prove to be a significant, but moderate predictor of CWBs – less so than personality
• Similar results found for OCBs (Arthaud-Day et al 2012)• There is an effect on perceived “fit” and the degree to
which the individual feels comfortable within an organisation (Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A., 1996)
• Worth measuring if you are seeking to create an optimum corporate culture
• Individuals and groups can be assessed for values.
A practical example – SACS Consulting
Andrew Marty
How Important is a Values Assessment?
Aptitude AssessmentsIs this person smart enough to do this job?
Integrity / CWBsAre they honest and trustworthy? Will they engage in counterproductive work behaviours?
PersonalityAre they emotionally stable? Are they energised? Are they approachable? Are they open minded?
ValuesGiven their personality and aptitudes, what will they focus their energy on?
Nature
Nurture
Nature: Personality
Nurture: Values
High Performance Modelling
IDENTIFICATIONOF HIGH
PERFORMERS- “EXEMPLARS”
AND THEIR RWOs
HIGH PERFORMANCE MODEL
Use the psychological tests and their scale scores which pick
out the high performers.
List the competencies which all your high performers have in common. Write behavioural
interview questions and a simple scoring system for each.
Behavioural Interviews What skills, knowledge, values and attitudes do they have in common?
Psychological testingWhat psychological characteristics do
they have in common?
Values, behaviours and culture.
Why do people want values statements?
Negative behaviours Positive behaviours
Values versus behaviours
My job
My team
My organisation
Above the line is between 70 and 85% of employee engagement
and wellbeing. The behaviours of leaders and colleagues are the
key driver of wellbeing.
This is why corporate initiatives such as mission, vision, values sometimes
have little impact
• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.
• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian Psychological Society, 33(2).• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.
What influences people’s behaviours?
Proximal (close to me). My trusted work mates to whom I am similar, the immediate group I belong to, something that happened very recently.
Distal – far away from me. The CEO, a committee, people to whom I am not similar. Something that happened a long time ago.
What influences people’s behaviours?
Conceptual – “Teamwork, integrity, excellence, social justice, collegiality Caring”, etc, etc
Concrete and behavioural – “turn up to meetings on time, find opportunities to reward good performance, read your documents before meetings”, etc.
Self Generated Behaviour Protocols
• SGBPs are proximal (developed by my own group) and recent. Should be revisited once per year at least.
• SGBPs are behavioural and concrete.• Process - the group (team, branch, division) is facilitated
through a series of small group activities to:
a) Agree a clear and very specific destination – if, as a team we were as good as we could possibly be, what would that look like?
b) What behaviours will we need to demonstrate in order to get there? Everyone participates in generating possible behaviours and then votes for the most important ones.
SGBPs continued
• The list of the top vote getting behaviours is then adopted as a behaviour protocol
• Announced to stakeholders• Made part of performance plans• Made part of recruitment and induction communication• Made part of internal processes such as succession
plans• Can be turned into 360° feedback assessments• This approach has been shown to be very effective in
maximising positive behaviours and minimising negative• Is very non-centralised, which can be a challenging
idea.
The next step - SGAP
• The next step after SGBPs is self generated action plans
• The group has already determined its destination. It has decided its behaviours (which individuals exhibit)
• The next question is whether there are actions we need to take as a group (set something up, change the format of our meetings, etc.)
• The group is facilitated to develop action plans (with leaders for each action, supporting team members, definitions of success and due dates)
• Follow up meetings take place to monitor progress.
SGAPs continued
• Extremely powerful change management approach
• Ensures empowerment at the same time as creating accountability for actions
• When it comes to team building, this is the way to do it
• Generates a sense of self management, but also generates a sense of optimism.
A four step change process…
• Goal – let’s agree what the destination looks like. Let’s get really specific
• Reality – where are we now in respect of this destination. 10 means we are there, 0 means we are a million miles away
• Options – let’s be creative. What are the possible options do we have to get us to the destination?
• What next – let’s evaluate these options and decide which we are going to commit to. Who will do these things and by when?
Suggested format for a values workshop
1. Get all the participants to complete the Schwartz PVQ
2. Assemble the participants and ask them to design the perfect values profile for the business they are in, what they believe in, etc.
Desired group values…
Format for values workshop continued
3. Show them the actual values results
4. Reality check! Ask them to rate how close their actual values are to the desired values. 10 is identical, 0 is totally different
5. Lead them through the development of a SGBP
6. Lead them through the development of a SGAP
Conclusions
• Everyone loves values statements!• Values can be measured accurately• Personality is a big driver of some values, but a
moderate driver of most – nurture is the key to most values
• Values can be demonstrated to be a valuable predictor of both CWBs and OCBs
• Values can be expressed at an individual and a group level
• Values are at their most powerful when they are backed by clear, unambiguous behaviour statements.
Reference List
• Arthaud-Day, M.L., Rode, J.C, & Turnley, W.H. (2012) Direct and contextual effects of
individual values or organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. 97(4), 792-807.• Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. Journal of
Personality, 73(5), 1321-1354. • Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A. (1996). Person-Organisation fit, job choice decisions and organisational
entry, Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311.• Desmidt, S., Prinzie, A., & Decramer, A. (2011). Looking for the value of mission statements: a meta-analysis of 20
years of
research, Management Decision, 49(3), 468-483.• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance:
Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.• Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive
work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 0-42• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian
Psychological Society, 33(2).• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship
Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.
• Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors
and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789-801
Reference List… continued
• Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). A new look at national cultures: Illustrative applications
to role stress and managerial behavior. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 417-436). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Schwartz, S. H. (2008) Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national
differences. Moscow: State University—Higher School of Economics Press. • Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.• Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In
M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (221-241). Washington: American Psychological Association Press
• Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Individual and cultural. In S. M. Breugelmans, A. Chasiotis,
& F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463-493).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values
– Evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 759-776
• Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Arieli, S. (2011). Personal values, national culture and
organizations: Insights applying the Schwartz value framework. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Second Edition (pp. 515-537). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
• Chapter In F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), A. Chasiotis, & S. M. Breugelmans, Fundamental
questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463-493). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011
For further information please contact Andrew Marty, Managing Director of SACS Consulting on +613 8622 8508 or [email protected]