the measurement and management of values

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 andrewm@sacsconsult.com.au