The Enigma Self Awareness Individuals both seek for and avoid self understanding. A prerequisite for management success and personal insight People often avoid self awareness because they feel they might learn something unpleasant about themselves 3
Appreciating Individual Differences A whale is as a unique as a cactus but don’t ask a whale to survive Death Valley. We all have special gifts. Where we use them and how determines whether we attain our potential [and are happy ]. Max DePree The network of positions and roles that define the formal organization is occupied by people who put their own personalities into getting the job done. Not only does each person have a certain style of doing his own work, but he has a unique way of relating to others… Edgar Schein To know won self is wisdom, but to know one’s neighbor is genius. Minna Antrium
5 What do you see? Do you see an old lady? Do you see a young lady? Can you see both an old lady and a young lady?
Self Awareness Information that crosses the sensitive line is resisted and, in fact creates rigidity and defensiveness. Discrepant information: u does not create rigidity when it is verifiable, predictable, and controllable u is less threatening when self-disclosure occurs, and when others help explain or interpret the information 6
Five Core Aspects of Self-Awareness 7 PERSONAL VALUES Determine personal standards and moral judgment CORE SELF-EVALUATION Determine preferences & interaction patterns LEARNING STYLE Determines information acquisition & evaluation ORIENTATION TOWARDS CHANGE Determine adaptability and responsibility EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Manage self and relationship with others
Attitude Toward Change: Two Dimensions Tolerance of ambiguity Ability to cope well with new situations Ability to cope with situations where information is incomplete or uncertain Locus of control Extent individuals attribute causation to factors they can control (internal) versus those they can not control (external) High tolerance for ambiguity and internal locus of control are associated with managerial success 8
Ambiguity Scale Comparison Data 9 SAMPLE SCORENUMBERMEAN Stevens PM Students20053.6 New York Psychology Students5050.9 New York Evening Students5753.0 Private Women’s College Students 4143.3 Engineering Students5848.9 Advanced Sociology Students3349.3 Nursing Students3451.9 High School Honor Students6248.2 Eastern Medical Students22944.6 Midwestern Medical Students24945.2
Locus of Control Scale Comparison Data 10 SAMPLE SCORENUMBERMEAN Stevens PM Students2045.6 Alberta Municipal Administrators 50**6.24 Business Executives71***8.29 Career Military Officers261***8.29 Connecticut Psychology Students 303*3.88 National High School Sample1000*8.50 Ohio State Psychology Students 1180*8.29 Peace Corps Trainees155*5.94 Sources: *Rotter, 1966; **Harvey, 1971; ***Rothberg, 1980
Interpersonal Orientation Consists of three needs people have when interacting with one another Inclusion To include others or to be included by them Control To control or be controlled by others Affection Express warmth and closeness to others; receive warmth and closeness from others Three incompatibilities can exist among these three needs Reciprocal; Originator; Interchange 11
Assesses three behavioral scales (interpersonal needs): Inclusion - related to community: belonging, involvement, participation, recognition, and distinction Control - related to power, authority, influence, responsibility, consistency Affection –related to acceptance/feedback: personal ties, consensus, sensitivity, support, openness 12 Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation – Behavior (FIRO-B) Survey
Each scale split into two dimensions: Expressed behavior - extent to which respondent feels need to initiate or show the behavior Wanted behavior - extent to which respondent wants or will accept the behavior from others 13 Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation – Behavior (FIRO-B) Survey
FIRO-B Scales & Dimensions 14 InclusionControlAffection Expressed How much do you try to include others in activities? (eI) How much do you try to exert control and influence, and direct others? (eC) How much do you try to be close to people? What is your level of comfort in expressing personal feelings and supportiveness? (eA) Wanted How much do you want others to include you in activities? How much do you want others to invite you to belong? (wI) How strong is your need to be in well-defined situations? To what degree do you want others to take control? (wC) How much warmth do you want from others? What is your level of enjoyment when people share feelings, and when they do encourage efforts? (wA) v FIRO-B Results: are numerical scores from 0-9 in each of the six categories of need listed above. Score Range: 0-2 – Low preference/need Score Range: 3-6 - Moderate preference/need Score Range: 7-9 – High preference/need
FIRO-B Analyzing your scores 15 InclusionControlAffection Totals Expressed Toward others 7 46 17 Wanted Behavior from others 6 37 16 Totals 13 7 13 33 Can compare expressed total with your wanted total: the extent you are willing to give as much behavior as you receive.
FIRO-B Analyzing your scores 16 InclusionControlAffection Totals Expressed Toward others 7 46 17 Wanted Behavior from others 2 32 7 Totals 9 7 8 24 Controllers – high expressed score low wanted score. Only want to give less willing to accept
FIRO-B Analyzing your scores 17 InclusionControlAffection Totals Expressed Toward others 3 43 10 Wanted Behavior from others 6 37 16 Totals 9 7 10 25 Passive – Low expressed score high wanted score. Only want to receive don’t initiate interaction
FIRO-B Analyzing your scores 18 InclusionControlAffection Totals Expressed Toward others 7 46 17 Wanted Behavior from others 6 37 16 Totals 13 7 13 33 Another way to look at the data, is comparing your scores on one need. Highest scores may indicate?
Average FIRO-B Scores and Ranges (General Population) 19 INCLUSIONCONTROLAFFECTION ROW TOTALS Expressed Toward Others 4 to 7 5.4 2 to 5 3.9 3 to 6 4.1 9 to 18 13.4 Wanted From Others 5 to 8 6.5 3 to 6 4.6 3 to 6 4.6 11 to 20 15.9 Column Totals 9 to 15 11.9 5 to 11 8.5 6 to 12 8.9 20 to 38 29.3
Average FIRO-B Scores and Ranges (Stevens PM Students) 20 n=199 INCLUSIONCONTROLAFFECTION ROW TOTALS Expressed Toward Others 4.64.623.9913.21 Wanted From Others 4.673.615.4413.72 Column Totals 9.278.239.4326.93
FIRO-B Compatibility Scores Matching one person’s score with another's Reciprocal One person’s expressed to Another’s wanted Originator Match between both parties expressed scores Interchange Extent parties emphasize same or different needs Total Sum of Absolute Values for all values 21
FIRO-B Matching one person’s scores with another’s 22 Inclusion Person A Expresse d Toward others 9 Person B Wanted Behavior from others 2 Difference between one person’s expressed behavior and the other person’s wanted behavior. Person A (e.g., manager) has high need for inclusion Person B (e.g., report) is low on this need Reciprocal incompatibility is > than 6 in absoluter values.
FIRO-B Matching one person’s scores with another’s 23 Inclusion Person A Expressed Toward others 8 Wanted Behavior from others 2 Difference between one person’s expressed behavior and the other person’s wanted behavior. Person A (e.g., manager) has high need for inclusion Person B (e.g., report) is low on this need Reciprocal incompatibility is > than 6 in absoluter values.
FIRO-B- IT Member Sample Results Table below shows the interpersonal needs most common in the IT Sample: Moderate expressed inclusion - 59% reported a moderate need/interest in inviting others to participate in their activities. Low wanted inclusion - 55% report little need to be invited to participate in others' activities. Low expressed and wanted control - almost half of the sample reported little interest in controlling other's activities, however, there is also little interest in allowing others to take control. Moderate expressed and wanted affection - In the most evenly distributed scale, more than 50% of the respondents want feedback/support some of the time, but at other times, the need is less great.
FIRO-B - Inclusion Preliminary Interpretations Inclusion relates to a person’s need for community & belonging. Frequency distribution chart shows that almost half of the sample has an unusually low degree of wanted Inclusion (score of zero). As a group, they tend to include others (expressed Inclusion) at a variable rate—as the situation or project requires or deems prudent. Generally, those with low wanted Inclusion scores lack a strong desire to belong or to be included in the activities of others. This finding supports MBTI data.
FIRO-B – Control - Preliminary Interpretations Control relates to a person’s needs for power and authority. Distribution chart shows that most in the sample have a generally low need for control or power, but also generally do not wish to be controlled by others. This dimension can be useful in assessing potential sources of control and power in a team - with these low scores, teaching this population about the need for and process to become included in a team (thereby allowing that team and its roles to exercise some control over them) may pose a unique challenge for managers.
FIRO-B - Affection Preliminary Interpretations Affection relates to a person’s needs for feedback and acceptance. Of the three scales, this is most evenly distributed, suggesting that the need for affection is generally variable, and may often be based upon the situation at hand. Wanted Affection scores are slightly higher than Expressed, suggesting that those in the sample are slightly more likely to want feedback than to offer it to others.
FIRO-B Applications for IT Teams The strength of the FIRO-B comes from the questions it raises for a team & the resulting learning process. Posting team FIRO-B scores and discussing may provide a useful language for talking about issues of inclusion, affection & control. Example from a Study Team: Manager with high Inclusion and Affection needs was frustrated by the fact that her team rarely gave her feedback about the project, even when she asked for it during team meetings, which she held frequently. She was also concerned by the lack of social connection present among team members. Workshop revealed that her team had collectively low FIRO-B scores. They, too, were frustrated - because there were too many meetings, and the Manager seemed too focused on “group sharing.” Despite the “group sharing” aspect of the workshop, posting and discussing MBTI and FIRO-B scores gave this team a new language to use to discuss their frustrations. Seeing the differences between the Manager and the team helped the group identify specific sources of conflict. Ultimately, the team established new ground rules related to communication pathways and frequency, which were designed to meet the needs of both the Manager and the team members.
29 Values: Two main types Instrumental values: the means and modes of conduct Terminal values: ends or desirable goals Managers should hold five values more centrally than other people u Sense of accomplishment (T) u Self-respect (T) u Comfortable life (T) u Independence (I) u Ambition (I)
Instrumental Values Instrumental values are associated with levels of moral maturity or values development which change as we age and mature Self-centered level u Values and moral judgment are based on needs, wants and the consequences of an act Conformity level u Values and moral judgment are based on conformity to expectations and conventions Principled level u Values and moral judgment are based on Internalized set of principles 30
Ethical Behavior Individuals who have developed to a more mature stage of value development behave more responsibly and ethically Ethical behavior is based on one of the following u Universalism u Reversibility u Dignity and liberty u Utilitarianism u Distributive justice u Personal moral code
Defining Issues Test Consider only the four statements you ranked as most important Identify the stage each statement represents (e.g. in escaped prisoner story statement 31 is a stage 3 response) Reverse the points associated with each ranking (e.g item ranked 1 gets 4 points) 32
Defining Issues Test Create a story by stage matrix and record points for each stage within a story. Total the points for each stage and multiply the totals points for each stage by 2.3 (scores on next slide are based upon based upon 7 stories) 33
Defining Issues Test Comparison Data 34 SOURCE: Davidson, M. and Robbins, S. (1978) “The Reliability and validity of objective indices of moral development.” Applied Psychological Measurement, 2:391-403. LEVEL PERCENTAGE SCORING IN THIS STAGE 2 6.98 3 18.08 4 31.00 5 28.40 6 6.37
Core Self-Evaluation Personality: The relatively enduring traits that makes an individual unique.
Determinants of Personality Some of our personality may be attributed to biology and genetics However, people can make changes to their personality if they are determined
Personality Traits The Big Five Dimensions of Personality 1. Extraversion 2. Agreeableness 3. Conscientiousness 4. Neuroticism 5. Openness
The Five Factor Model Emotional Stability calm, enthusiastic, poised, secure depressed, angry, emotional, insecure (unstable = Neurotic) Openness to Experience imaginative, sensitive, intellectual, polished down to earth, insensitive, narrow, crude, simple
Core Self-Evaluations Core evaluations subconsciously influence people’s appraisal of themselves, the world, and others.
Core Self-Evaluation Four Components 1. Self-Esteem 2. Generalized Self-Efficacy 3. Neuroticism 4. Locus of Control
Self-Efficacy Albert Bandura’s pioneering work belief in one’s own capacity to perform a task develops in two ways direct experiences - feedback from task performance vicarious experiences - observations of others’ performing tasks
People make judgments about whether they can perform a task effectively analyze the task assess how their resources and constraints will help or hinder assess past outcomes in terms of their ability and skill (internal) or external forces higher self efficacy will result in more challenging and difficult goals
Satisfaction with Self-Awareness Scores 45 Very Satisfied Neutral Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Values Cognitive LOC Ambiguity FIRO-B PSI Style
Group discussion Respond to the first five statements on page 93 in Whetton and 1 of the statements on page 94 u In taking the assessment instruments, I was surprised by… u Some of my dominant characteristics captured by the instruments are… u Among my greatest strengths are…. u Among my greatest weaknesses are... u The time I felt most successful was when… Using your FIRO-B results, calculate Reciprocity scores for all pairs of individuals in your group. For each pairing you will get three Reciprocity scores, one for each need (See page handout) Based upon your scores on the assessment instruments u Describe some collective strengths u Describe some collective weaknesses u Describe some ways you complement one another
Looking Glass Exercise 1. In the assigned groups share your scores on the skill assessment exercises 2. To help articulate your self awareness, each member should take turns going first in completing first 5 statements and at least 1 of the next 6 aloud on page 94. 3. After each person has answered all the questions, partners should provide reaction and feedback a. What I have learned about you … b. I think your greatest strengths are … c. Areas I think you may want to work on … 4. The exercise should be an interchange not a one way presentation How difficult was it to provide feedback to others after they answered the questions? Self-disclosure is important in acquiring self awareness; what else could have been shared to improve your self-awareness?
Cognitive Style Summary Characteristics Intuitive Concepts; Relationships; The whole; Theories; Generalizations; Commonalities; What is similar Feeling Gut feel; Internal senses; Subjective states; Impressionistic data; Irrationality; Spirituality Sensing Concrete experience; Details; Parts of the whole; Facts; Close examination; Uniqueness; What doesn’t fit Thinking A plan; A method; Rational procedures; Logical progression; Justifying the means; Empirical procedures The Major Focus of Each Cognitive Style
49 Kolb's learning styles Reflective Observation Watching Concrete Experience Feeling Active Experimentation Doing Abstract Conceptualisation Thinking Assimilating (think and watch) AC/RO Diverging (feel and watch) CE/RO Converging (think and do) AC/AE Accommodating (feel and do) CE/AE Processing Continuum how we do things Perception Continuum how we think about things
Cognitive Style Instrument Comparison Data 50 COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS IntuitiveSensingThinkingFeeling Males 5.986.026.805.20 Females 6.045.966.945.06 Accounting 6.705.306.405.60 Business 7.564.447.674.33 Engineering 4.577.439.142.86 Liberal Arts 7.334.676.675.33 Nonbusiness 6.00 5.756.25 Combined 6.00 6.845.16 Comparisons are based on the scores of 408 graduate and undergraduate college students.
Study Methods Associated with Cognitive Styles 51 STYLE COMPATIBLE STUDY METHODS Intuitive Reading, integrating, conceptualizing, theorizing Sensing Memorizing, debating, identifying facts Thinking Logical reasoning, outlining, writing Feeling Creative thinking, experimenting, trial and error
Style of Decision Making Judging (J) Perceiving (P) Preference for Decision Making Thinking (T) Feeling (F) Type of Social Interaction Introvert (I) Extrovert (E) Preference for Gathering Data Intuitive (N) Sensing (S) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator