 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
White Paper: An Overview of the Values Based Evaluation (VBE) Process October 01, 2003 By: Gregory L. Selker 1. Basic Assumptions (a) Values are Highly Complex Phenomena How can this be? Evidence for this negative conclusion is based on the apparent fact that these actions fail to make any real meaningful difference--i.e., noticeable change--in the operational cultures of these organizations in the long term. This is because the notion of issuing a values statement and the more sophisticated action of actually attempting to measure organizational values are both based on an unexamined assumption: a value is a simple conceptual structure made up of a single dimension. Given the generally accepted assumption that a value is a single, uniform variable, little discussion is ever given to (a) defining a given value in a deeper, more accurate, and realistic fashion, (b) listing the many behaviors related to the given value, (c) making a list of situations in which that value would or would not be manifested, and or (d) comparing the declared, ideal values (ideal or potential value set) with the actual, operational values (actual value set). Some corporations with which we have spoken are trying to bypass these problems by taking empirical measurements using questionnaire surveys. Yet, in looking at the survey questions, the problem remains the same. These questions are usually written from the perspective that value terms like “honesty,” “integrity,” and “service” are understood the same by all persons across all situations and all corporate subcultures (i.e., different functional areas), as well as all cultures in general. This results in the application of survey instruments based on relatively simplistic questions about what are in reality highly complex structures. Consequently, the data collected result in limited information, and the corporate leadership is given a sense of motion, but very little movement towards actually shaping its culture. The easiest way at understanding the complex nature of a value is by attempting to define it. A value, because it is paradoxically real and abstract, is obviously difficult to define and psychologists working in this area have given up the attempt preferring instead to describe its various features. Schwartz & Bilsky (1987) offer this analytic definition in saying that a value is a composition of: (a) concepts or beliefs; In combining Schwartz’s and Schwartz and Bilsky’s view, one can arrive at a fairly comprehensive definition of what makes a value. Our working definition is: A value is a system of hierarchically related beliefs and emotions that organizes perception and cognition for the evaluation and selection of behaviors across situations to realize goals and/or affirm one’s identity in relationship to the world in the present and future. What makes our view different is that it (a) acknowledges that a value is a complex concept made up of substructures that (b) functionally organize behavior to (c) attain future goals and/or (d) maintain self-concept (e) in relation to external reality. Our definition includes an invaluable factor that is usually not found in most other definitions: the term “and/or.” That is, values, because they are complex systems that organize perception, cognition, and behavior, are often in conflict with one another. This key feature will now be examined in more detail. To think of a value as a single variable, such as “honesty,” without taking into consideration other related values, personality characteristics, and specific situations, limits both understanding and predictive utility. To think about values from a narrow perspective is to have what anthropologists call a “value orientation;” a kind of general view that cannot clearly peer into the heart of the systematic and often conflicted nature of the operation of values. Schwartz (1996) observes that most researchers investigating values have tended to focus on a single value and then measure correlations to attitudes and behaviors, but this has led to a piecemeal accumulation of data and has not adequately supported theory construction. “Three noteworthy problems beset these [single value measurement] approaches,” according to Schwartz: First, the reliability of any single value is quite low. Hence chance may play a substantial role in the emergence or nonemergence of significant associations with single values. Second, absent a comprehensive set of values or a broad theory to guide selection of target values, values that were not included in a study may be equally or more meaningfully related to the phenomenon in question than those studied… Third, and most important, these single-value approaches ignore the widely shared assumption that attitudes and behavior are guided not by the priority given to a single value but by tradeoffs among competing values that are implicated simultaneously in a behavior or attitude (p. 1-2). While Schwartz is criticizing the design flaws of most other empirical studies of values, his criticisms are just as applicable to actual OD efforts to measure values using relatively simple, paper-and-pencil instruments. Values as organized systems of cognitive and emotional reference points organize perception, judgment, and behavior in a complex process. But, just how complex is a person’s values system? The most recent studies into the nature of values and behavior reveal three important things: values are (a) universally-held, (b) multi-dimensional concepts that (c) relate to one another in a hierarchical structure. Schwartz’s research offers great insight into the nature of an individual’s value system. Schwartz studied the values of members of 41 different countries. His studies reveal a system of universally-shared values organized by ten motivationally distinct values (see Figure 1).
Schwartz’s research is remarkable in that it shows not only the complexity of how values organize into component subsystems, but also how they relate in terms of a hierarchy based on conflict and equilibrium. That is, a value system is used by a person to continually compare his or her ideals (i.e., self-image) against reality. From this, behavioral decisions are made in relation to reality and one’s self-image and/or immediate goals; an area of potential conflict and/or contradictory action. If one cannot act upon one’s values in a way that is congruent with the self-concept, then inner conflict results (anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, frustration, cognitive dissonance, etc.). On the other hand, one may have a self-concept based on ethical integrity, but in certain situations occurring within the greater context of cultural values, those values may be thrown out the window in favor of less ethical decisions. This notion is very much in line with Kurt Lewin’s field theory that personal and organizational behavior is determined by driving forces pushing people to behave in certain ways versus restraining forces holding persons back from certain behaviors…all in the service to maintain a sense of psychological and relational equilibrium. Schwartz's model—as well as Lewin’s field theory--shows that values are not singular structures, but are more like dynamic processes organized on relational opposition to both internal factors (other values) and external factors (the nature of a given culture/situation). (b) Preference for the Qualitative Method The quantitative method is usually the preferred choice in most typical research situations requiring extremely precise measurements with a high degree of reliability. Unfortunately, even though quantitative methods are precise and reliable, they are not the best choice when investigating the realm of values. The Achilles’ heel of the quantitative method in this particular situation is that, because it is essentially a reductionistic technique, it must reduce any phenomenon being measured into a small enough pieces so that it can be measured with the highest acceptable degree of reliability. Unfortunately, because values are highly complex structures they do not lend themselves to reduction. Consequently, the quantitative method tends to be superficially narrow in the knowledge it provides with each measure. This feature tends to limit understanding of the phenomenon being investigated. To overcome superficiality, many, many more measurements must be taken. This is the heart of the reductive method: trying to analyze a whole phenomenon from a distance, as it were, by breaking it apart and investigating it piece by piece from the ground up. A second shortcoming of the quantitative method is that in order to obtain a high degree of objectivity, it must objectify subjective phenomena by converting all data into numerical form and then submitting that data to statistical analyses. This makes for a very powerful method, yet one that also has an ironic limitation: it leeches any subjective meaning out of the data being investigated, and further removes the investigator from the actual phenomenon. While the resulting data may be quite objective—assuming a measure of objectivity needed in a physical science, such as engineering or chemistry—it tends to lack significance in understanding the phenomenon to any relevant degree; the data is highly reliable, but lacks the real substance needed for solid decision-making. To recap the points just made: • Quantitative measurements, because they must reduce a given phenomenon to a measurable size, tend to destroy the very thing it seeks to investigate. • The information that is gained is then converted into numbers that remove the data even further from human experience. • While highly reliable and objective data are obtained, these results, for the most part, are often of limited application by their very nature, and, worse, usually removed from everyday questions and problems. • They yield valid, but superficial information at relatively economical costs. The essential difference between the quantitative and qualitative research methods is that the quantitative method aims at measuring a phenomenon; the qualitative method aims at understanding the meaning of a phenomenon. This is an important distinction to appreciate. It points to an entirely different—yet no less truthful--conception of what constitutes valid evidence. Qualitative evidence is based on observation and personal testimony; evidence that, while it may not be readily “measured,” is, nonetheless, valid factual information which can be used for informed decision making as in a court of law, for example. In contrast to the quantitative method, the qualitative method tends to offer more in-depth knowledge, and a deeper understanding of the meaning underlying subjective phenomena. Typical research techniques used in qualitative design studies include: • Focus Group Method • Case Study Method • Content Analysis • Descriptive Phenomenological Method • Hermeneutics • Ethnography • Ethnomethodology 2. The VBE Process For a team, the very act of defining values-based behavior specific to a discipline and functional area focuses attention on these values in a way that has not previously occurred. The discussion and ongoing conversation takes these values from their idealized state, and brings them to a structured state specific to what people do within their discipline and functional job. This behavior is then analyzed and placed into ICM’s (Interviewed Candidate Matrices, see Figure 2.) For each functional area within each discipline, an additional ICM is developed to reflect specific skills and experience necessary for optimal performance. All of the values, behavior and skills are weighted in importance. Questions are developed to allow an interviewer to discern whether or not a candidate possesses experience reflective of the sought after behavior or skills. Finally, all of the data within the created ICM’s are ported into an application which is integrated into an organization’s existing intranet. As an interviewing team assesses candidates for hire, the questions and ICM’s provide the framework guiding and informing the interview and the evaluation process. Interviewers score candidates based on their assessment of the match between communicated experience and sought after behavior. A composite score, representing a statistical weighted average, is developed for each key element (Key Element Leadership Value Average or KE LVA.) All of the KE LVA’s are statistically compiled to deliver an overall LVA (Leadership Value Average) for each candidate. The LVA represents the compiled total data for each candidate across all the evaluation criteria. The LVA communicates where a group of candidates are in ranked comparison to each other with respect to the organization’s values, sought after representative behavior, and necessary skills and experience. As the ICM’s are completed, data is automatically consolidated from the interviewing team and can be sorted and viewed against all criteria. For example, the total group of interviewed candidates can be sorted and viewed by their LVA, KE LVA, or by a ranked scoring of specific behaviors or skills. An individual candidate’s scores can be viewed in detail. A historical comparison of how one interviewer has scored individuals over time can be generated and used for training purposes. 3. The Emergence of a Culture of Value What would be some of the overall ramifications if the VBE process—including necessary changes in structures, processes, and overall recruitment philosophy--were thoroughly integrated into hiring methodology and the process of performance evaluation? Several things come to mind. First, and at the very least, instituting the VBE process would put greater control of the evolution of corporate culture. That is, a system would be put in place that could be aimed at slowly changing corporate leadership over time to bring it into alignment with actual and potential (target) values. Second, it would raise the level of awareness and conversation within the corporation regarding its value system—both its declared target values and its everyday operational values—which in itself would help support the evolutionary process of change from within. This conversation and the commitment from corporate leadership to keep it alive are continuously reinforced every time the VBE process is used. It is additionally renewed and reinforced by the semi-annual maintenance measurements that are an essential part of the VBE program. Third, and this comes from believing in the principles of cultural management espoused by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Edgar Schein, the formal support for preferred and positive individual behavior which is most representative of shared and intended corporate values as evidenced by the hiring and promotion of corporate leaders whose behavior embodies these values, helps to create a culture of leadership which is nurtured and sustained on an ongoing basis. This culture of leadership becomes the fertile ground and environment in which, when specific operational practices are enacted, high-performance is sustained within an organization (see Figure 3.) An organization that by its positively evolving nature places the value of its members in the center of its operational culture is an organization that is maintaining an environment wherein people experience themselves, others and the organization as a whole of having and delivering sustained value. This cultural climate is the leverage for sustaining high-performance by doing, in the words of the subtitle of Pfeffer’s recent book The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Figure 3. A ∩ B = C and C ∩ D = E A = a group of individuals with rough approximation in skills and experience B = the Values-Based Evaluation process employed within an organization allowing you to evaluate, promote and hire a subset of “A” whose skills, experience and behavior is the best match for the skills, experience and behavior most representative of your organization’s values C = a growing culture of values-based leadership within your organization. D = practices which have been identified as those which high-performance organizations consistently have across the areas of compensation, organizational structure, training & development, hiring & promotion and communication of information E = a high-performance organization which sustains itself over time (∩ = intersected with)
References Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Mark Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 25, (pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562. Pfeffer, J. (1998) The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press
|
