Trust Based Management Leadership Chart 12.2016

Effective Managers Perceptions Become

Beliefs

Leaders

No Shared Organization GoalsWork Values not congruent or alignedNo Trust/Disloyal Zone of indifferenceLow productivity A place of conflict/managers do not understand generational differences Lack of agreementsEthnocentric – groups act superior to othersPoor CommunicationAuthority/Power is abusedAbilene Paradox workers have: “fear of separation, action anxiety, real risk, and negative fantasies*Bullying & MobbingZone of indifference

8

Shared Values (Cultural), work values are aligned – ethical Abilene Paradox does not happen as mutual trust exists so work is a place of reduced conflict and agreements can be obtained. Place of Purpose where productivity increasesIndividuals & groups work to support organization goalsSupportive Communication Authority affects positive changeWorkers accept orders without questioning authority

Shared Work Values (Cultural) are alignedMutual Trust/Loyalty Accepted Vision (causing emotional response of inspiration) and is based on group’s values. Productivity aboundsLeaders are not superior as they inspire workTrust drives perceptions/beliefs/behaviorMutual trust + Congruence of values + Accepted visions = Leadership.

Leadership = Means to move or inspire followers to a desired action, often at a higher level of performance/productivity, by causing followers to desire the action themselves without the need of coercion or the promise of extrinsic reward. Inspiring people with passion to want to do more than is required. Stand behind people; they do it, not you. Is independent on the organizational hierarchy and the effective rate as things happen related to trust. Nominal Manager/Leader is in name only and based on their title and workers follow only when they want to.

= creating a proper trust environment

for management/ leadership.

Vision comes from Shared Values

Values describe those attributes and things guiding an organization and determine the goals of the organization. Managers Create Behavioral Changes by

Motivation as each decision either motivates or demotivates

+

Ineffective Nominal Managers

Perceptions Become Beliefs

Shared

Management/Authority = Control of the members of an organization through the use of coercion and reward to motivate employees, and groups, to achieve a desired action.

Leaders Create Behavioral Changes through low or a high level of

/inspiration/passion/grace & altruism-

The Management Process = Planning – Organizing - Staffing – Leading - Controlling – To take care of Land, Labor & Capital to meet the objectives of the organization to improve business policy, process, standard, and expectations to better serve the customer. Is dependent on the organizational hierarchy and the effective rate as things happen related to rank.

Sharing/Aligning Values drives behavior & trust helping motivate individuals/organizations toward the achievement of accepted/committed goals to increase productivity and customer

satisfaction

December 1, 2016 Unifying Theroy leadership

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

1 | P a g e


MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS: Is based on the assumption individuals are motivated to satisfy some needs, and money can directly or indirectly satisfy only some of these requirements. The needs hierarchy adequately describes the general order or ranking of most people’s needs when managed and or to lead.

Self- actualization

Self-fulfillment, Esteem or ego

Recognition, Confidence, Success, Strength

Social Acceptance, Belonging, Love, Affection

Safety Security, Protection, Comfort, Peace, Surroundings

Physiological Food, Thirst, Sleep, Health, Body needs, Exercise, Rest

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

LOWER-ORDER NEEDS Many managers are concerned more about his/ her own security; therefore, they want to maintain the status quo. Workers allow their values to be trampled. Manage by fear.

HIGHER-ORDER NEEDS Leadership results in trust, loyally, risk taking, innovation, higher productivity, low turnover, low absenteeism, and etc. Recognize workers values. Do not use fear to manage, rather they inspire with passion.

Self-actualization—self-fulfillment of potential, challenge, curiosity, creativity, etc

Esteem or ego—recognition, prestige, confidence, leadership, competence, success, etc.

Social—acceptance, belonging, group membership and participation, love, affection

Safety—protection, comfort, peace, no threats, long-term economic well-being, etc.

Physiological—food, thirst, sleep, health, body needs, exercise, rest


2 | P a g e



3 | P a g e


The Abilene Paradox – Dr. Jerry Harvey

o July afternoon in Coleman, Texaso 51 miles from Abileneo 104 degreeso wind blowing fine-grain topsoil through the houseo things were tolerable - fan going on porch, cold lemonade and for entertainment - dominoeso father-in-law - “let’s get into the car and go to Abilene and eat at the cafeteriao I thought - “what in this dust storm & heat; 53 miles; in an un-air-conditioned 1958 Buicko Wife chimes in, “Sounds like a great idea, I would like to go.”o I chime in, “Sounds good to me, if your mother wants to go.”o Mother-in-law, “Of course I want to go, I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time”o predictions were fulfilled: heat was brutal, coated with a fine layer of dust cemented with perspiration, food was

first-rate testimonial for antacid commercialso 4 hrs and 106 miles later, hot and exhausted, we return home.o To be sociable, I said, “It was a great trip wasn’t it?”o No one spoke, until mother-in-law irritably says, “To tell you the truth I would have rather stayed here, I went

along because the three of you wanted to.o I couldn’t believe it, “ I was delighted doing what we were doing.” o My wife, “don’t call me a culprit, you and daddy and momma were the ones that wanted to go”o Father enters in, “Hell, I never wanted to go, I thought you might be bored, you visit so seldom, I wanted to be

sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play more dominoes and eat leftovers in the icebox.”o We had all done just the opposite of what we wanted to do.

1. Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to what they want to do and, therefore, defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.

2. A major corollary of the paradox: the inability to manage agreement is a significant source of organization dysfunction.

Abilene Paradox - The curious tendency of groups to make decisions individual members do not truly support.The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

4 | P a g e


Action Anxiety – a great uneasiness created when we think about acting on what we believe needs to be done.Agreement Manager - The person in a group who takes it upon themselves to stimulate discussion, encourage option identification and move towards true consensus.Fear of Separation - The unspoken fear people have of being isolated from others in the group.Mismanaged Agreement - The tendency of group members to hesitate to offer their true opinions, and to, therefore, agree with a decision they do not support.Negative Fantasy - the disaster scenarios we play out in our minds when faced with a major decision.Real Risk - the true adverse consequences of an incorrect decision, as opposed to thedisaster scenarios of our negative fantasies.Skipping the Trip - Employing measures to ensure participants in a group decision are encouraged and supported in expressing their opinions, and decisions reached by a group accurately reflect the group’s preferences.A trip to Abilene - Any decision a group makes against the unvoiced wishes of itsmembers. Such a trip is inevitably the result of mismanaged agreement.


5 | P a g e



6 | P a g e



7 | P a g e


Area of Leadership This area represents where employees are:

• Empowered by each other and the established authority.• Trusted by each other and the established authority.• Trust each other and the established authority.

Relationships are:• Founded on aligned values.• Mutually beneficial.

Results are realized through:• Shared vision.• Inspiration.

Zone of Indifference, Employees, must believe the order given is not in contrast with their personal beliefs. This last condition thus explains the zone of indifference where Barnard concludes individuals have a zone or indifference or


8 | P a g e


range they willingly accept orders without questioning authority (Allen, 1998). The zone of indifference is important in explaining why some employees within an organization follow authority and others do not. An important concept to note regarding Chester Barnard’s theory is the zone of indifference is mostly explained by an individual’s values and personal belief system. About values and belief systems, and individual’s zone of indifference is the range where he or she will or will not accept directives based on what he or she believes. In other words, an order given by an authoritative figure within an organization and an individual’s beliefs will not allow him to complete this task or comply with the order; this particular directive falls outside of his zone of indifference.

Unifying Theory of Leadership


9 | P a g e


This theory or methodology for understanding leadership and management is described as a “unifying theory” because all theories of leadership and management can be analyzed and compared by using the components of management and/or leadership described in the “unifying theory.”

As students can see in most texts about leadership, management and leadership are frequently used interchangeably. If management and leadership are interchangeable, why are both terms needed? The unifying theory requires specific definitions for leadership and management. Management refers to what managers do. They “control” budgets, schedules, raw materials, technology, as managers make sure budgets are maintained, schedules are met, the technology works and is up to date, and all other tasks related to the job. Managers use people to achieve their goals. The only way to make sure budgets are maintained, schedules are met, the quality of work is maintained, etc., is by controlling what the people in an organization do. Managers use the threat of coercion and promise of a reward to control the actions of the manager’s subordinates. Therefore, a manager “controls” people through the use of coercion and reward.

The management activity of controlling employees is dependent on motivation. Managers motivate using coercion and reward. Managers have employees. Employees must obey the orders of managers or be punished and rewarded if the task is completed successfully. Types of motivation can be found at the bottom half of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

The definition of Leadership is: Means to move or inspire followers to the desired action, often at a higher level of performance, by causing followers to desire the action themselves without the need of coercion or the promise of extrinsic reward.

Leaders do not use motivation as their primary methodology to “persuade” people to do something. Leaders inspire people to do more than is required. Leaders have followers. In the American culture, the following is voluntary. The types of inspiration used by leaders can be found at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Inspiration results in a passionate, emotional response to the goal/vision of the leader. Since following is voluntary, a leader must offer a vision or goal causing people to want passionately to follow. When people decide to follow, they accept the vision or goal of the leader. People become followers when they accept the vision of a leader. For example, M. L. King, Jr. inspired people to end segregation. Therefore, leaders “inspire” people to do more than is required.The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

10 | P a g e


There are two types of managers: effective and ineffective. An American manager is effective when he or she shares the overarching values of the people in the organization and share a mutual trust with the employees in the organization.

Without trust, people will do only the minimum required. Managers who do not trust their employees will use coercion and micromanagement to control employees. Americans reject coercion and micromanagement, so the result is CYAs, no innovation, withholding information from the manager and other counterproductive actions.

Managers who share the overarching values of their employees will know how the employees prefer to be treated and to do the work. Values tell the members of a group or culture the preferred way of doing things and how people should be treated. When managers do not function using the shared values of the group, they are considered “bad” and rejected as having legitimate authority. In this case, the employees follow orders only to keep their jobs. Managers who do share the values of the group and are not trusted have lower levels of productivity, quality, innovation, higher turnover, and more disciplinary actions than effective managers. Managers who share a mutual trust and shared values with their employees have higher productivity, more innovation, higher quality work, fewer disciplinary actions, and less employee turnover.

Before a person in an organization can be a leader, she or he much hold the shared values and have a mutual trust with the members of the organization. When shared values and mutual trust are already present, leadership is possible. An accepted vision results in leadership. The accepted vision will be based on shared values and will result in a passionate desire by the members of the organization to accomplish the offered vision.

An ineffective manager does not share the values of the other people in the organization nor does he or she share a mutual trust with his or her employees. Without mutual trust and shared values, the members of the organization will not accept the vision and must be forced or managed to accomplish the vision. However, there is very little enthusiasm for the vision.

Since the unifying theory of leadership and management depends on shared values, the model can be applied to any culture. Instead of American values based on individualism, the values of another culture should be substituted. Members of any culture expect their culture’s overarching cultures to define how things will be done, by whom, and The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

11 | P a g e


when. The people in the organization will not trust managers and will never decide to follow if their values are not the shared values of the culture.

So, when trying to describe a manager and a leader in another culture, one must identify and apply the relevant values to the way the organization works. When this is done, the chances of organizational success are improved.

Substituting the values from another culture make this leadership and management model applicable in all cultures. The specific definitions for management and leadership allow students of leadership to differentiate easily between leadership and management and to identify easily how managers and leaders are different.

In some leadership models, a person can be given the job of being a leader. However, it must be recognized when someone is appointed to “leadership” position, he or she is not necessarily a leader.

The primary reason a business student should consider the study of leadership is productivity and innovation. The original research resulted in this model of leadership and management was a longitudinal (three years) used productivity, innovation, quality, reduced employee turnover, and reduced disciplinary actions strongly suggested leaders have significantly higher levels of productivity, innovation, and quality than any management model. Leadership also resulted in less employee turnover and fewer disciplinary actions. Effective management resulted in lower levels of productivity, quality, and innovation than leadership, but it was significantly better than ineffective managers. Shared values and mutual trust matter to successful organizations.


12 | P a g e


MANAGEMENT = creating a proper trust environment for leadership & Managers Create Change by Motivation

Management - Control of the members of an organization through the use of coercion and reward to motivate employees to achieve the desired action. Actions by the members of an organization are a reaction to the threat of punishment or the promise of a reward. Actions of people who are managed are voluntary in the required actions must stay within the individual's “zone of indifference” and is based on personal values, meaning the person being managed will conform with the direction of a superior as long as the direction does not violate his or her values.

The Management ProcessPlanning – Organizing - Staffing – Leading - Controlling – To take care of Land, Labor & Capital to meet the objectives of the organization

Ineffective Management No Shared Organization Goals Work Values not congruent or aligned No Trust/Disloyal Zone of indifference and unethical Low productivity A place of conflict/managers does not understand generational differences Lack of agreements Ethnocentric – groups act superior to others Poor Communication Abused Authority/Power Abilene Paradox workers have: “fear of separation, action anxiety, real risk, and negative fantasies* Bullying & Mobbing

Zone of Indifference, Employees, must believe the order given is not in contrast with their personal beliefs. This last condition thus explains the zone of indifference where Barnard concludes individuals have a zone or indifference or range in which they willingly accept orders without questioning authority (Allen, 1998). The zone of The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

13 | P a g e


indifference is important in explaining why some employees within an organization follow authority and others do not. An important concept to note regarding Chester Barnard’s theory is the zone of indifference is mostly explained by an individual’s values and personal belief system. About values and belief systems, and individual’s zone of indifference is the range where he or she will or will not accept directives based on what he believes. In other words, an order given by an authoritative figure within an organization and an individual’s beliefs will not allow him to complete this task or comply with the order; this particular directive falls outside of his zone of indifference. Understanding the concept of the zone of indifference is important for today’s managers. Knowing what this concept is about, and the importance of not violating one’s values (Zone of Acceptance) can help to increase organizational effectiveness. Managers should understand each subordinate has a unique set of values and beliefs, and this may ultimately result in non-compliance with certain directives. Effective managers should understand values and beliefs vary across cultures and in today’s multi-cultural, global workforce, this is an especially important concept to grasp. If a manager denies the concept of the zone of indifference does not exist and orders subordinates to perform tasks violating their beliefs, negative consequences could follow for a manager as well as the organization as a whole (i.e. legal issues/lawsuits). Effective Management:

Shared Values (Cultural), work values are aligned – ethical Abilene Paradox does not happen as mutual trust exists so work is a place of reduced conflict and agreements

can be obtained. Place of Purpose where productivity increases Individuals & groups work to support organization goals Supportive Communication Authority affects positive change Workers accept orders without questioning authority


14 | P a g e


LEADERSHIP = Create Change through low or a high level of /inspiration/passion/grace & altruism

Leadership – When within a culture, there is a congruence of values and mutual trust between so-called leaders and followers, leadership is achieved by inspiring followers to action to realize a vision (based on group’s core values) identified by the leader. The person inspired to perform the desired activity is called a follower. The leader uses the articulation of goals and values (encapsulated in a vision statement) as the vehicle to lead others.

Management is the opposite of leadership regarding individual motivation. Operating within the zone of indifference produces a neutral motivation at best. Leadership leads to a passion for one’s work.

Vision is an overarching goal or desire for the group as expressed by the leader. For example, a leader’s vision might be for his or her company to be the best in the industry. Vision inspires followers to help achieve the leader’s goal because the followers decide they also want the expressed goal. However, just as followership is voluntary, the desire to work for the leader’s expressed goal is also voluntary. Vision is based on the core value of the culture. An accepted or working vision is the vision accepted by the organization. It provides the reason and motivation for what the organization is doing.

Overarching values means some values are common to the whole group and are, therefore, primary values, and are; the value is “over” or of the entire group.

Nominal Leaders are those members of an organization who hold positions to be considered hierarchical leadership positions. Their job is the position of authority status. This status gives the nominal leaders access to the information and resources allowing them to the first things the organization desires to do. In a hierarchical organization, so-called leaders hold position who are superior to the positions of the nominal followers. The “nominal” is used, because the “nominal leaders” are in positions of leadership (managers with titles of leadership), but may not necessarily be defacto leaders. A nominal leader is a person who is in name only a leader, in other words, to get employees to work the nominal leaders uses coercion and reward to motivate employees to achieve the desired action. In other words, this leader does not share his/her values with employees


15 | P a g e


Nominal followers are those members of an organization in an inferior position about the nominal leaders. Since followership is voluntary, subordinate members of an organization are necessarily followers. Nominal followers become followers only when they choose to be.VALUES = Sharing Values/trust will help drive and motivate individuals/organizations toward the achievement of accepted/committed goals as values are either in alignment or not.

If all values are equal, then there are no values.

Actions become habits, habits become values, and values become character

Every person carries within him or herself patterns of thinking, feeling and potential acting which were learned throughout their lifetime. These are values.Values are the individuals learned preferences of the members of a group, culture, society, or organization. Values are the overarching, learned preferences common to a group. Values tell the members of the group what is “right” and “wrong” in a given situation, what is “good” and “bad,” “pretty and ugly.” Each value tells the members of a group a choice, in a given circumstance, is preferable. Values are among the first things children learn – not consciously, implicitly. Development psychologists believe by the age of 10; most children have their basic value system firmly in place, and after the age, changes are difficult to make. Because they were acquired so early in their lives, many values remain unconscious and not requiring thought to those who hold them. Therefore they cannot be discussed, nor can they be directly observed by outsiders. Then can only be inferred from the way people act under various circumstances.

Professed Values are the group values, and are sometimes know as accepted values. Professed values are claimed by all or most of the members of the group. However, individuals may not necessarily subscribe to such a value in personal acts. For instance, a person may profess lying is wrong, but lie when his or her interest requires lying.

Individual Values are those values an individual applies to himself or herself. These values may not always agree with professed values. For instance, an individual may profess theft is wrong, but he or she will steal long distance telephone calls, pencils, paper, or some other item from work. Individual values are those by which individual lives.


16 | P a g e


Core values are the unifying values of a culture or organization. Core values are the central values unifying the group and allow members of the group to work together. For instance, in the United States, core values are found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other traditional American values such as the Protestant work ethic. Hofstede would identify strong preferences for “individualism” a strong preference for low “power distance,” a moderate propensity not to prefer “uncertainty avoidance,” and moderate preference for “masculinity.”Congruence of values means values matches from one person to another. Just as two or more triangles may be congruent or equal, the values of two or more people be congruent or similar. When values are congruent between people, the value different people hold are the same.

Our Country Values 1. God2. Family3. Honor/Duty/Strong Work Ethics4. Bravery5. Integrity – Trust

Other Values1. Stay out of debt2. Self-Reliant – being accountable for yourself3. Loving for each other4. Be humble – pray to Lord for help – Lord I do not know5. Stand up for the right things, the things we believe in. Values in your Marriage

As a country we need to:Stop spending, stop cooking the books, tell the truth, and fight to win

Leadership: Shared Work Values (Cultural) are aligned Mutual Trust/Loyalty Accepted Vision (causing emotional response of inspiration) and is based on group’s values. Productivity abounds Leaders are not superior as they inspire work


17 | P a g e


Trust drives perceptions/beliefs/behavior Mutual trust + Congruence of values + Accepted visions = Leadership.

TRUST

Freedom

National Security

The Economy

Trust

The Foundation

A Framework for a Society

Trust allows followers to choose to follow a prospective leader. Trust means one can accurately predict the behavior or actions of another person, based on what one assumes the values of the person to be. One trusts someone to either perform in the way with how one agrees or disagrees. When one agrees with the actions of a nominal leader, those actions are desired just as the success of those actions desired. Thus, trust springs from a desire to see predicted actions happen. Conversely, a leader can depend on followers’ actions resorting to controlling behaviors when the leader trusts the followers. Since followership is voluntary, followers will not choose to follow a nominal leader who is not trusted.

A follower is a person who chooses to perform the activities desired by a leader as following is voluntary, and it is the result of the acceptance of a vision articulated by a leader. Followership is the state of following a leader. It is a voluntary act by a follower. It implies a self-motivation and does not require external control or management.


18 | P a g e


Mutual trust means the leader trusts his or her followers, and the followers trust the leader.

Kouses and Posner’s The Leadership Challenge (4th Ed.)“In almost every survey we’ve conducted, honesty has been selected more often than any other leadership characteristic; overall, it emerges as the single most important ingredient in the leader-constituent relationship” (p. 32).This echoes EXACTLY what we were talking about with trust (said slightly differently).-Darin

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is a moral value considered to be a virtue. A trustworthy person is someone in whom we can place our trust and rest assured the trust will not be betrayed. A person can prove his trustworthiness by fulfilling an The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

19 | P a g e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue


assigned responsibility - and as an extension to not let down our expectations. The responsibility can be either material, such as delivering a mail package on time, or it can be a non-material such as keeping an important secret to himself. A trustworthy person is someone we can put our worries and secrets into and know they will not come out. For one to trust another, their worth and integrity must be constantly proven over time.

Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀ ρετή ) is moral excellence. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting individual and collective well-being, and thus good by definition. The opposite of virtue is vice.

Trust is a relationship of reliance. Trust does not need to involve belief in the good character, vices, or morals of the other party. Persons engaged in a criminal activity usually trust each other to some extent. Also, trust does not need to include an action he or she and the other party are mutually engaged in. Trust is a prediction of reliance on an action, based on what a party knows about the other party. Trust is a statement about what is otherwise unknown -- for example, because it is far away, cannot be verified, or is in the future.

Integrity is the consistency of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Depth and breadth of a value system may also be significant factors due to their congruence with a wider range of observations. People are said to have the integrity to the extent they behave according to the values, beliefs, and principles they claim to hold. One's value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if inconsistencies are accounted for and resolved.

Hypocrisy results when one part of a value system is demonstrably at odds with another and the person or group of people holding those values fails to account for the discrepancy. Hypocrisy is considered to be the opposite of integrity.

Is trust important to help eliminate conflict? Trust means one can accurately predict the behavior or actions of another person, based

on what one assumes the values of the person to be. One trusts someone to either perform in a way with which one agrees or disagrees. Culture is an important part of trust, because it is the sum of the group’s values.

According to Hofsted, values tell the members of a group those what is right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Mutual trust means the leader trusts his or her followers, and the followers trust the leader.


20 | P a g e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_and_value_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%BC%88%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity


Krystal Davis

Trust in Eliminating Conflict

There is a difference between a manager and a leader. The differences manifest in action and values. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if trust between a worker and superior helps eliminate or mitigate the Abilene Paradox Causes. The author will also discuss why it is important to understand the Abilene Paradox Causes when trust does not exist. The discussion will examine what the most important value a superior should possess is and why it so important. The discussion will conclude with what happens to the success of a group, the relationship with a superior, or family members when values are not congruent.

Trust is necessary to eliminate action anxiety, fear of separation, negative fantasies, and real risk. Mackey and Sisodia (2013, p. 222) state “Trust and hypocritical, inauthentic leadership can never coexist. An organization’s purpose is meaningless if the leadership doesn’t manifest it and serve it.” Mackey and Sisodia (2013, p. 222) further state, “Conscious leaders operate with a sincerely felt sense of trusteeship. They consider the impacts of their actions far into the future, not just on the next quarter’s bottom line. They feel a great sense of responsibility toward the organization with which they have been entrusted, considering it a sacred duty to leave it healthier and stronger than they found it.”

Trust goes both ways. Leaders must trust employees, but employees must trust in leadership, as well. Mackey and Sisodia (2013, p. 223) state, “Leaders must trust people to use their best judgment, instead of trying to control them with too many directives and rules.” A micromanager can be perceived as distrusting employees, and the employees learn to distrust the micromanager. Mackey and Sisodia (2013, p. 223) also state, “Overly close supervision erodes trust on both sides.” If employees are trusted to do the right thing, they usually respond very positively (Mackey & Sisodia, 2013).

Straiter (2005, p. 87) suggests “Within organizations, interpersonal trust between supervisors and subordinates has been shown to significantly influence perceptions of accurate performance appraisals, performance, and productivity, and organizational commitment, morale, turnover, absenteeism, and cost in untapped potential. Also, interpersonal trust between supervisors and subordinates improves the quality of communication, citizenship behavior, and problem The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

21 | P a g e


solving and decision making.” A little trust can go a long way in eliminating or mitigating the causes of the Abilene Paradox.

Action anxiety occurs when organization members take actions contradictory to their beliefs because thinking about doing what they believe needs to be done them intensely anxious (Harvey, 1988). Negative fantasies occur when an individual ponders what would happen if they acted by what he or she believes needs to be done and the potential consequences ensuing (Harvey, 1988). Real risk means not knowing, nor being able to predict or control, the events happening or the outcomes of actions undertaken in response to those events (Harvey, 1988). Fear of separation is the fear of taking risks resulting in separation from others (Harvey, 1988).

It is important to understand the Abilene Paradox causes without trust. Straiter (2005, p. 87) remarks, “Systems Trust is a “collective attribute” based upon the relationships between people exist in a social system. Systems or organizational trust’s primary effect is the reduction of social complexity and the increased tolerability of uncertainty in external relationships. Within organizations, trust contributes to the more effective implementation of the strategy, greater managerial coordination, and more effective work teams.” Without trust, one may experience anxiety when speaking up for what is right. One could not have faith in his or her leadership when it comes to supporting the employee for doing what is right and accepting the real risk involved. Every single cause of the Abilene Paradox is built on a foundation of non-trust.

After careful consideration, one believes concern for others is the most important value a superior should possess. As stated in “Personal Values” (n.d., para. 18), “Perhaps the single most powerful way to succeed in life is to have more concern for our fellow human beings. Normally, we are overwhelmingly concerned about ourselves, driven by our personal motives and ambitions. However, the happiest people lose themselves in the feelings, thoughts, and aspirations of others.” An individual who is genuinely interested in the welfare of others, willing to be tolerant and kind to others, listen attentively and silently to their words, be non-judgmental, and open to their opinions and points of view is an excellent candidate for great success in life ("Personal Values," n.d.). All of these attributes are what makes an outstanding leader, not a manager.

What happens when one’s values are not congruent with the superior or the organization? Brett Simmons (2010, para. 2) states, “Value congruence is the extent to which the individual can behave at work consistent with their self-image. The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

22 | P a g e


It is very difficult to experience meaningfulness in our work if we are expected to behave in ways we are inconsistent with the highest values we espouse to ourselves and others.” If the values of the individual and the organization are not congruent, it makes for a difficult working environment where the individual feels the potential to compromise his or her integrity.

In conclusion, implicit trust is an absolute necessity between a worker and a superior. Trust harbors healthy working relationships where there is complicity in both leadership and the individual employee. Without trust, one becomes open to anxiety, fear of reprisal, and the real risk of losing his or her job. A true leader will embody a multitude of values. The most important value will be the one placing all others before self. In an organization where there is a lack of values congruence, one may experience less than meaningful work and be placed in a situation where there is potential for compromising his or her values.

References

Harvey, J. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious capitalism. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Personal values. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://humanscience.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_values

Simmons, B. L. (2010). Leadership integrity, value congruence, and employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2010-07/leadership-integrity-value-congruence-and-employee-engagement/

Straiter, K. L. (2005). The effects of supervisors’ trust of subordinates and their organization on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.International Journal of Leadership Studies, I(1), 86-101. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol1iss1/straiter/trust.pdf


23 | P a g e


CULTURE

Hofstede defines culture as the sum of the preferred values of a group. By definition, different cultures have different values, or they would be all the same culture. Fairholm defines a culture as based on shared core values.

Culture is an important part of the trust, because it is the sum of the group’s values. According to Hofstede, values tell the members of a group those things are right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Therefore, if trust is the foundation of leadership, leadership will not exist when followers do not agree with the values of the nominal leader. (Nominal Leaders are those members of an organization who hold positions to be considered hierarchical leadership positions, meaning their job is position of authority status.

Culture (1) The training or refining of the mind; civilization – culture 1. (2) The collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another. This meaning corresponds to the use of the term ‘culture’ in anthropology.Organization culture – Shared values of the members of the organizationCorporate Culture simply stated could mean the way we do things around here. Culture in an organization compares to personality in a person. Humans have fairly enduring, and stable traits are helping them protect their attitudes and behaviors. So do organizations. Corporations can be described as warm, aggressive, friendly, open, innovative, conservative and so forth. This culture can be transmitted in many ways including:

1. long-standing and often unwritten rules2. shared standards regarding what is important3. prejudices4. standards for social etiquette and demeanor5. established customs for relating to peers, subordinates, and superiors6. Moreover, other traditions helping clarify to employees what is and is not appropriate behavior.

Thus, corporate culture communicates how people in the organization should behave by establishing a value system conveyed through;

RitualsMythsLegendsActions


24 | P a g e


Cultural differences manifest themselves in several ways:Symbols – are words, gestures, pictures or objects carrying a particular meaning and is only recognized by those who share the culture.Heroes – are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics are highly prized in a culture, and who thus serve as models for behavior.Rituals – are collective activities, such as ways of greeting and pay respect to others, social and religious ceremonies are examples. Business and political meetings organized for seemingly relational reasons often serve mainly ritual purposes, like allowing the leaders to assert themselvesValues – are broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others. Many organizations can trace their culture to one person who provided a living example of the critical value of the organization. Walt Disney of Walt Disney Company, Thomas Watson, Jr. of IBM. Research suggests fewer than half of a new company’s values reflect the values of their leaders. The rest appear to develop in response both to the environment in which the business operates and to the needs of the employees.

The core culture is formed by Shared Values:

What is Evil Or GoodWhat is Dirty Or CleanWhat is Ugly Or PrettyWhat is Unnatural Or NaturalWhat is Abnormal Or NormalWhat is Paradoxic

alOr Logical

What is Irrational Or Rational

The Four Dimensions of National Cultures (Dimension – An aspect of a phenomenon to be measured).

Masculinity/Femininity – Means the cultural preference for the superiority or dominance of values associated with either males or females. Traditionally, the Japanese subordinate females to males. Femininity stands for a society in which gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Masculinity - Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

25 | P a g e


supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.

Uncertainty Avoidance - Is the cultural preference to accept or not accept economic uncertainty. For instance, socialism represents a desire to avoid uncertainty, and capitalism represents a desire not to avoid economic uncertainty in return for the possibility of a higher degree of prosperity. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (from weak to strong).

Individualism - Means the cultural preference for personal choices or the primacy of the individual over the group or organization, including government. In general, Americans prefer individual freedom, and Japanese prefer individuals subordinate themselves to the group. – The opposite of Collectivism. The society values the individual. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only. Collectivism – The opposite of individualism. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Thus, society values the group.

Power Distance - Is tired to individualism, and refers to the cultural preference for the supremacy of the individual over the group. This preference leads to the desire not to have a superior or boss. For instance, in general, Americans prefer not to have a boss, while the Japanese, in general, and prefer to have a superior. The extent to the less powerful members of institutions and organizations with a country expect and accept of power is distributed unequally (from large to small). Essentially, as a culture, how willing are we to accept someone’s superiority? i.e. a boss or class. America has a low Power Distance number. Thus, we dislike the boss mentality. Conversely, the Japanese and Germans have a higher Power Distance number. Thus, their cultures do not mind having a boss.


26 | P a g e


Power Distance willingness to accept BossHigh – Willingness to accept a boss, 10987 Germany, Japan65432 Americans1 Low – Does not like to bossed


27 | P a g e

Self-actualizatio

nSelf-

fulfillment, Esteem or egoRecognition,

Confidence, Success, StrengthSocial

Acceptance, Belonging, Love, AffectionSafety

Security, Protection, Comfort, Peace, Surroundings

PhysiologicalFood, Thirst, Sleep, Health, Body needs, Exercise,

Rest

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

LOWER-ORDER NEEDSMany managers are concerned more about his/her own security; therefore, they want to maintain the status quo. Workers allow their values to be trampled. Manage by fear.

HIGHER-ORDER NEEDSLeadership results in trust, loyally, risk taking, innovation, higher productivity, low turnover, low absenteeism, and etc. Recognize workers values. Do not use fear to manage, rather they inspire with passion.


MOTIVATION: Motivation 1) is concerned with what motivates human behavior 2) is concerned with what directs this behavior toward a particular goal 3) concerned with how this behavior is sustained. Grace provides forgiveness via altruism and does inspire people to achieve more than is required by loyalty.

MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS: Is based on the assumption individuals are motivated to satisfy some needs, and money can directly or indirectly satisfy only some of these needs. The needs hierarchy adequately describes the general order or ranking of most people’s needs to be managed and or lead.


28 | P a g e


5. Self-actualization—self-fulfillment of potential, challenge, curiosity, creativity, etc4. Esteem or ego—recognition, prestige, confidence, leadership, competence, success, etc.3. Social—acceptance, belonging, group membership and participation, love, affection2. Safety—protection, comfort, peace, no threats, long-term economic well-being, etc.1. Physiological—food, thirst, sleep, health, body needs, exercise, rest

The manager’s job is to determine the need level an individual employee is attempting to satisfy and then provide the means for satisfaction and are not easy tasks.

Although most needs of most people are arranged in the above sequence differences in the sequence can occur, depending on an individual’s learning experience, culture, social upbringing, and numerous other personality aspects. Next, the strength or potency of a person’s needs may shift back and forth under different situations. For instance, during bad economic times, physiological and safety needs might tend to dominate an individual’s behavior; in good economic times, higher-order needs might dominate an individual’s behavior.

The unconscious character of the various needs should be recognized. Also, there is a certain degree of cultural specificity of needs. In other words, the ways by which the various needs can be met tend to be controlled by cultural and societal factors.

As far as motivation is concerned, the thrust of the hierarchy of needs is the lowest-level unsatisfied needs cause behavior. The hierarchy represents what Maslow thought was the order in which unsatisfied needs would activate behavior.

Does motivation come from the manager or the individual?

In interpreting people’s statements about their values, it is important to distinguish between desirable and the desired: how people think the world ought to be versus what people want for themselves. Questions about the desirable refer to people in general and are worded in terms/wrong, agree/disagree or something similar.

Understanding the differences in the ways leaders and their followers think, feel and act is a condition of bringing about solutions working or leading to conflict when there are conflicting values. One of the reasons so many solutions do not work or cannot be implemented is because differences in thinking among the group have


29 | P a g e


been ignored. Understanding such differences is at least as essential to understanding the technical factors (Formal vs. informal learning).

Grace - Is defined as forgiveness raised to the highest level in the form of undeserved favor. Need to Express Altruism (Self-sacrifice)

Altruism “getting pleasure from giving to others what you would like to receive.” Cultures whose members express altruism in the form of forgiveness and grace

survive Cultures lacking the capacity for altruistic forgiveness and grace die. Secondary effect of GRACE is to inspire by granting the following:

o Risk taking o Innovation o Reality testing o Community building o Helps create loyalty

Getting pleasure from giving to others what you yourself would like to receive Helps from a psychological perspective:

o Integrate realityo Interpersonal relationshipso Private feelingso Provides a protective filter for the most searing emotions.o Helps us to express empathy and sympathy for others.

The motivation of employees is tied to how employee’s view how management is concerned with meeting individual, group or organizational goals.


30 | P a g e


Competing

AccommodationAvoiding

CollaborationConcernFor our goals

High

Low

ConcernFor others goals

High

Compromising

“What are the Basic Approaches to Dealing with Conflict?

Avoiding. May be effective when the conflict is temporary, a cooling down period is needed, the risk of engaging is too high, or the conflict is none of their concern. Remember, however; avoidance does not solve the problem ( the decision needed now), may cause one to miss an opportunity for resolution, and may make the situation worse as time goes on.

Accommodating. Accommodators give in as a way of maintaining harmony. Accommodating may be appropriate to main cohesiveness’ if the issues are not worth spending time on, accommodating requires appeasement, sacrificing one’s values or principles, and putting harmony above dealing with important issues. In such instances, one loses the opportunity for input, and this person may lose the respect of others.


31 | P a g e


Competing. An aggressive approach to conflict assumes the best (or only) way to reach one’s goals is to overrule others. This approach frequently disregards the concerns of adversaries completely, leaving the losers with pent up resentment eventually leading to father conflict. In some instances, however, the power-based method is appropriate (e.g. in a safety crisis when the issues are not important enough to spend time working it out. Alternatively, when necessary but make the unpopular decision. Also, if others are determined to profit at their expense, one may have no recourse but to fight in self-defense.

Compromising. This approach has aspects of both competing and accommodating. Compromising give up more than competing but less than accommodating. It addresses issues more directly avoiding but does not explore as much as collaborating. Compromising requires cooperation and might mean exchanging concessions, seeking the middle ground, or splitting the difference. Compromising is sometimes appropriate when one have been unable to reach an acceptable agreement through other ways, and the choices for resolving the disputes are clearly limited.

Collaborating. The collaborative approach is a commitment to working together to address the conflict. Collaboration is based on the premise it is possible to meet one’s needs and those of others as well. Also, collaboration assumes conflict is a natural part of life, and conflict provides opportunities to work with other to produce resolutions serving both individuals and common interests. As a necessary byproduct of collaborating is – through the process of working together for a solution – better decision results, and the relationship between the disputants is improved. This approach is also known as a concessions-decision method. Still, the collaborative approach is not a panacea. It is time-consuming and does not always result in mutually satisfactory outcomes. Also, effective collaboration requires open sharing, cooperation by everyone involved, and willingness to operate in good faith. Collaborating is often inappropriate when issues are trivial, a quick decision made in an emergency, or an expert is required.” U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 8.8.1998, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240, pp 2-2, & 2-3


32 | P a g e


POWERPOWER: a force causing one individual to force another individual to do something they would otherwise not do.POLITICS: power in action, involves the self-interest attempt to control scarce and valuable organizational resources, is the process of redistributing power within an organization.AUTHORITY: the right to seek compliance of others; is legitimate power.LEADERSHIP: ability to get self-starting motivation and initiative; to get voluntary action beyond what is required and beyond mechanical compliance; they do what you want to be done because they want to do it!An individual worker has little power … However, once they arrive at a certain mass on an issue, collectively workers have tremendous power.The importance of “please and thank you.” Importance of acknowledgment and recognition. Recognize the importance of the worker in a system. Stand behind people; they do it, not you. Good relationships with your workers will give you a good reputation … which will build your referent and expertise power.

HOW MUCH POWERMore if:

you need to change attitudes and cultures. initial resistance power exists.

How to get power: 1st Step: get it from your boss (legitimate, reward, coercive). 2nd Step: grow your own via politics and personal effort (expert, referent, workforce, location).

Danger of too much power: Easy over-reliance on legitimate, reward and coercive. Power can corrupt (Lord Acton), easy to dominate and exploit the weak, easy to view subordinates as

objects to manipulate.POWER AND ETHICS

People comment they “…hate the politics around here.” Power and politics not necessarily evil; power is needed to get things done in the face of opposition, and

much of the opposition will be well intentioned.


33 | P a g e


Developing a Vision, Mission, Strategy (Does the vision & strategy match the culture) with Appropriate Goals/Objectives to fulfill the Vision.

Vision for Organization is developed by Upper Management/Leaders

Identify the Culture-Sensitive Mission for OrganizationDevelop a SWOT to determine the strategic position of the organization (should include a SWOT of

the Culture of the Organization).

Culture values must be value driven to meet the objectives of the organization.

Develop or Formulate the Strategy Setting Objective

Establishing Goals for meeting Objectives

Fulfilling the Vision of the organization


34 | P a g e


Organizational Ethnocentrism Behavior (ethnocentrism is a powerful force weakening human relations.)Eth-no-cen-tric adjective evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of one's own culture.

ethno-a combining form meaning “race,” “culture,” “people,” used in the formation of compound words: ethnography. Ethnocentrism defined as “an evaluative bias for one’s group (in-group) and the perception of out-groups (all other groups) as being inferior” (Templer, 2010). Sumner (1906), the originator of the term, described ethnocentrism as the view of things in which one’s group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated concerning it…Each group nourishes its pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders (p. 13).

As Sumner (1906) relates, people judge other groups in relationship to the values and standards of their group. Put another way; people see the world through the lens of their culture. This ethnocentric focus limits and distorts peoples’ views of the world, often leading them to make false assumptions about cultural differences and other groups.

As a result, ethnocentric thinking can disrupt or obstruct business activities. For example, ethnocentrism can hinder rational strategic planning because it distorts the most important aspects of strategic thinking (Booth, 1979). Imagine a United States CEO, who will not entertain a merger with a foreign organization because headquarters for this complany is in a country the CEO believes intelligently inferior to Americans.

Ethnocentric tendencies may also create relationship conflicts when managers promote their own country’s value-based management systems within other countries and ignore the different local country customs and norms (Begley & Boyd, 2003). As an example, Thomas and Hill (1999) relate when one organization was “going international,” implementing a corporate identity strategy backfired then the strategy reflected ethnocentric views. In another example, Wiarda (1985) identifies ethnocentrism as a critical factor undermined the success of various the United States foreign policies.

2.1 The Psychology of Ethnocentric Tendencies

Various theories are developed in an attempt to explain the origins of ethnocentrism. Some of the key theories are summarized below as background for instructors teaching ethnocentric theory. So why are people ethnocentric? One The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

35 | P a g e


hypothesis is ethnocentric tendencies of parents are taught to their children just as attitudes about religion or politics are taught (Mosher & Scodel, 1960). Children hear their parents discussing different groups of people and retain information forming the basis for ethnocentric views. A second hypothesis relates to the childrearing practices of austere parents. The Authoritarian Personality Theory (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) suggests authoritarian personalities originate because children of strict parents were not able to express hostility towards their parents. Instead, these children learned to displace their hostility onto weaker target groups. Consequently, individuals with authoritarian personalities categorize individuals into “us” and “them” groups and view their individual group as superior.

The Belief Congruence Theory (Rokeach & Rothman, 1965) suggests most significant determinant of an individual’s view toward another person is the congruence between the two individuals's beliefs, attitudes, and values. Moreover, the Similarity-Attraction Theory (Brynes, 1971) proposes we are attracted to people who are like ourselves because these people validate our beliefs about ourselves. Where there is a high similarity, the mutual attraction is thought to occur. Alternatively, dissimilarity encourages a negative orientation toward the other party. The Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) suggests hostility between two groups occurs due to real or perceived conflicting objectives creating competition between the two groups. Feelings of resentment arise because each cluster envisions only one group will win the competition, and the other group will lose. Consequently, negative stereotypes about, and hostility toward, the other group (the out-group) develops.

The Frustration-Aggression Theory (Berkowitz, 1972; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) suggests anger arises when individuals believe they are not fairly treated. This anger results in Intergroup conflict can then escalate into ethnocentrism (Grant & Brown, 1995). According to the related Scapegoat Theory, people may be prejudice toward a group and use the group they dislike as the target for their anger as a way to vent their frustrations with various issues. For example, the Scapegoat Theory suggests the Germans viewed Jewish people as scapegoats for German country problems. A concentration of anger built up amongst the German population resulted in a massive ethnocentric hatred of Jewish people.

The Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) suggests individuals seek out group membership to validate their self-esteem. However, membership in the group is not enough to confirm self-esteem. Instead, individuals need to feel they are in the “correct” group, producing the need to make favorable distinctions between the in-group versus the out-group. Positive comparisons of one’s group to other groups make individuals feel their team is superior. Alternatively, the Relative Deprivation Theory (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) refers to the The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

36 | P a g e


discontent people feel when they compare their positions to those of similarly situated people and realize they have less than their peers. It is a condition measured by comparing one group’s situation to the situations of those who are more advantaged.

Additionally, Barger (2008) suggests ethnocentrism can be defined as “making false assumptions about others' ways based on one’s limited experience.” Barger relates what we have already experienced is the basis for our "reality," what we expect. It is okay to assume it is the "natural" basis of reality... because our ways work for us. Our perceptions of colors, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about Life and the Universe, and all our other ways help us organize life experience and provide significant meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities. Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences, in this case, others’ behavior.

“A person who is born into a particular culture and grows up absorbing the values and behaviors of the culture will develop patterns of thought reflecting the culture as normal. If the person then experiences other cultures have different values and normal behaviors, the person finds the thought patterns appropriate to their birth culture and the meanings their birth culture attaches to behaviors are not suitable for the new cultures. However, since a person is accustomed to their birth culture it can be difficult for the person to see the behaviors of people from a different culture from the viewpoint of this culture rather than from their own.” (http://ethnocentric.askdefine.com/)

Organizational Ethnocentrism Behavior (ethnocentrism is a powerful force weakening human relations.)

ethno-a combining form meaning “race,” “culture,” “people,” used in the formation of compound words:ethnography. Ethnocentrism has been defined as “an evaluative bias for one’s group (in-group) and the perception of out-groups (all other groups) as being inferior” (Templer, 2010). Sumner (1906), the originator of the term, described ethnocentrism as the view of things in where one’s group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated concerning it…Each group nourishes its pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders (p. 13).

As Sumner (1906) relates, people judge other groups in relationship to the values and standards of their group. Put another way, people see the world through the lens of their culture. This ethnocentric focus limits and distorts peoples’ views of the world, often leading them to make false assumptions about cultural differences and other groups.


37 | P a g e


As a result, ethnocentric thinking can disrupt or obstruct business activities. For example, ethnocentrism can hinder rational strategic planning because it distorts key aspects of strategic thinking (Booth, 1979). Imagine a United States CEO, who will not entertain a merger with a foreign organization because this company is headquartered in a country the CEO believes intelligently inferior to Americans.

Ethnocentric tendencies may also create relationship conflicts when managers promote their own country’s value-based management systems within other countries and ignore the different local country customs and norms (Begley & Boyd, 2003). As an example, Thomas and Hill (1999) relate when one organization was “going international,” implementing a corporate identity strategy backfired then the strategy reflected ethnocentric views. In another example, Wiarda (1985) identifies ethnocentrism as a critical factor undermined the success of various the United States foreign policies.

2.1 The Psychology of Ethnocentric Tendencies

Various theories have been developed in an attempt to explain the origins of ethnocentrism. Some of the key theories are summarized below as background for instructors teaching ethnocentric theory. So why are people ethnocentric? One hypothesis is ethnocentric tendencies of parents are taught to their children just as attitudes about religion or politics are taught (Mosher & Scodel, 1960). Children hear their parents discussing different groups of people and retain information forming the basis for ethnocentric views. A second hypothesis relates to the childrearing practices of austere parents. The Authoritarian Personality Theory (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) suggests authoritarian personalities originate because children of strict parents were not able to express hostility towards their parents. Instead, these children learned to displace their hostility onto weaker target groups. Consequently, individuals with authoritarian personalities categorize individuals into “us” and “them” groups and view their individual group as superior.

The Belief Congruence Theory (Rokeach & Rothman, 1965) suggests most significant determinant of an individual’s view toward another person is the congruence between the two people's beliefs, attitudes, and values. Moreover, the Similarity-Attraction Theory (Brynes, 1971) proposes we are attracted to people who are like ourselves because these people validate our beliefs about ourselves. Where there is a high similarity, the reciprocal attraction is thought to occur. Alternatively, dissimilarity encourages a negative orientation toward the other party. The Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) suggests hostility between two groups occurs due to real or perceived conflicting objectives creating competition between the two groups. Feelings of resentment arise because The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

38 | P a g e


each group envisions only one group will win the competition, and the other group will lose. Consequently, negative stereotypes about, and hostility toward, the other group (the out-group) develops.

The Frustration-Aggression Theory (Berkowitz, 1972; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) suggests anger arises when individuals believe they are not fairly treated. This anger results in Intergroup conflict can then escalate into ethnocentrism (Grant & Brown, 1995). According to the related Scapegoat Theory, people may be prejudice toward a group and use the group they dislike as the target for their anger as a way to vent their frustrations with various issues. For example, the Scapegoat Theory suggests the Germans viewed Jewish people as scapegoats for German country problems. A concentration of anger built up amongst the German population resulted in a massive ethnocentric hatred of Jewish people.

The Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) suggests individuals seek out group membership to validate their self-esteem. However, membership in the group is not enough to confirm self-esteem. Instead, individuals need to feel they are in the “correct” group, producing the need to make favorable distinctions between the in-group versus the out-group. Positive comparisons of one’s group to other groups make individuals feel their group is superior. Alternatively, the Relative Deprivation Theory (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) refers to the discontent people feel when they compare their positions to those of similarly situated people and realize they have less than their peers. It is a condition measured by comparing one group’s situation to the situations of those who are more advantaged.

Additionally, Barger (2008) suggests ethnocentrism can be defined as “making false assumptions about others' ways based on one’s limited experience.” Barger relates what we have already experienced is the basis for our "reality," what we expect. It 's okay to assume it is the "natural" basis of reality... because our ways work for us. Our perceptions of colors, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about Life and the Universe, and all our other ways help us organize life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities. Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences, in this case, others’ behavior.

“A person who is born into a particular culture and grows up absorbing the values and behaviors of the culture will develop patterns of thought reflecting the culture as normal. If the person then experiences other cultures have different values and normal behaviors, the person finds the thought patterns appropriate to their birth culture and the meanings their birth culture attaches to behaviors are not suitable for the new cultures. However, since a person is The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

39 | P a g e


accustomed to their birth culture it can be difficult for the person to see the behaviors of people from a different culture from the viewpoint of this culture rather than from their own.” (http://ethnocentric.askdefine.com/)

ETHNOCENTRISMWhat is it? Why are people ethnocentric? What is the problem? What can we do about it? Recognition and control of Ethnocentrism as a basic methodology for understanding ethnic behavior... both our own and others.

A snowmobile race sponsored by the Inuit (Eskimo) community council in a village on the Hudson's Bay in the Canadian Arctic, Christmas 1969. Inuit friends urged me to join in a snowshoe race across the river ice, but, knowing I was inexperienced at this, I was reluctant to participate. They persisted, however, and, recognizing that they wanted me to be involved, I agreed. Of course, I was the last one to return, way behind everyone else in the race. I was very embarrassed, but to my surprise, people came up to me and congratulated me, saying, "You really tried!" A month later, when I was on a caribou hunting trip with three Inuit men in a remote area, we got trapped by a winter storm and had to go several days without food. This was when I learned that trying was much more important than winning. While the Inuit like to win, their greater value on trying has a distinct adaptive function. One way anthropologists learn about other cultures is "participant observation," being involved in their daily life, watching what they do, and doing what they do. We seek to learn the meanings and (more important) the functions of their ways. We Are also involved in "cross-cultural comparison," comparing their life experiences with other


40 | P a g e

http://ethnocentric.askdefine.com/


groups (mostly our own). In the case of the snowshoe race, I learned about Inuit values on trying, but I also learned about American values on competition and winning.

"Ethnocentrism" is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern. The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers tocultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point... so "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural perspectives. But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained below, everyone is ethnocentric, and there is no way not to be ethnocentric... it cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude.

To address the deeper issues involved in ethnocentrism calls for a more explicit definition. In this sense, ethnocentrism can be defined as: making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions because we are not even aware we are being ethnocentric... we do not understand we do not understand.

One example of ethnocentrism is seen in the above comments on the Inuit snowshoe race. I assumed that I had "lost" the race, but it turns out the Inuit saw the same situation very differently than I did. Westerners have a binary conflict view of life (right or wrong, liberal versus conservative, etc.), and I had imposed my "win or lose" perspective of life on the situation. As a result, I did not understand how they experience life, trying is a basic element of life. Did this not necessarily involve thinking that my ways were superior, but rather that I assumed my experience was operational in another group's circumstances.

Another example illustrates how basic ethnocentrism is. If we go to a store and ask for a green coat and the sales clerk gives us a blue one, we would think the person was color blind at the best or stupid at the worst. However, "colors" are not so simple. The Inuit lump shades of what AngloAmericans call "blue" and "green" into one color category, tungortuk, which can only be translated as "blue-green." Does this mean that they cannot see the difference? Just as we can distinguish between different shades (such as "sky blue" and "navy blue," and "kelly green" and "forest green"), so can the Inuit. If they want to refer to what we would call "green," they would say tungUYortuk, which can be translated something like "that blue-green that looks like the color of a [conifer] tree." The point is that


41 | P a g e


something so "simple" as colors have very different meanings to the Inuit and to us. How could an Inuk "feel blue"? Colors, after all, are only different wavelengths of light, and the rainbow can be divided in many different ways.

There are many, many examples of such differences in meanings make life experience so unique for all the human groups around the world. For example, English has tenses built into our verb forms, so we automatically think in terms of time (being "punctual," "time is money," "make the time," etc.). But Algonquian Indian languages do not have tenses (not that they cannot express time if they wish), but rather have "animate" and "inanimate" verb forms, so they automatically think in terms of whether things around them have a life essence or not. So when Chippewa Indians do not show up for a medical appointment, Anglo health care workers may explain this as being "present-oriented," since we normally cannot think except in terms of time frames. But this is the essence of ethnocentrism, since we may be imposing a time frame where none exists.

The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgments, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism. For example, Anglos may observe Cree Indians sitting around a camp not doing obvious work that is needed and see Crees as "lazy". Westerners value "being busy" (industriousness), and so may not appreciate the Cree capacity to relax and not be compelled to pursue some activities of a temporary nature... nor realize how much effort is put into other activities like hunting.Assumptions can also reflect false positive attitudes about others' ways. For example, we in urban industrial society frequently think of Cree Indians as being "free of the stresses of modern society," but this view fails to recognize there are many stresses in their way of life, including the threat of starvation if injured while checking a trap line a hundred miles from base camp or when game cycles hit low ebbs. False positive assumptions are just as misleading as false negative assumptions.

Examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world. When you think about your own experience with people from other ethnic groups and with attitudes expressed about relations with other countries, what examples come to your mind where you may have imposed your views and feelings about life on their experience?

Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other people's ways. The question is why are we ethnocentric?The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

42 | P a g e


The definition given above emphasizes that we make false assumptions based on our limited experience. This is all we know... what we have already experienced is the basis for our "reality," what we expect. It is okay to assume it is the "natural" basis of reality... because our ways work for us. Our perceptions of colors, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about Life and the Universe, and all our other ways help us organize life experience and provide significant meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities. Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences, in this case, othersâ€™ behavior.

Since we have not experienced everything they have experienced, how can we not be ethnocentric?

So what is the problem with ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our tinted glasses. We see their ways regarding our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.At the heart of this is that we do not understand that we do not understand! So we are not aware that we can develop more valid understandings about how they experience life.

At best, we simply continue in our unawareness. This can have consequences within our society and in international relations. We may be well meaning in interethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill feelings, and even set up situations that harm others. For example, it is easy not to see the life concerns of others (particularly minorities and the disadvantaged) or conversely to pity them for their inabilities to deal with life situations (like poverty or high crime rates). How do we feel when someone does not recognize our concerns or feels sorry for us because we cannot "just let go" of a stressful situation?A lack of understanding can also inhibit effective resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?


43 | P a g e


Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts. For example, how might our Western binary conflict view of life (A versus B) influence our interpretation of another group's intents when they express a different position on an issue? Is it just another" viewpoint, or is it "against" our viewpoint? If we do not "win" the conflict, will we "lose"? We may have positive intentions (from our viewpoint) in "helping" other groups deal with certain "problems," but how do they see the problem and what kind of solution do they want? Some peoples around the world see Americans as very competitive and violent people, as evidenced by our business practices, Hollywood movies, and events like the Columbine High School massacre. How much does this describe your personal experience? How do you think this perception might influence their assumptions about our intents in relations with their societies? An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. The world community condemns These views, but we regularly see such cases in the news.One issue that we need to consider is that ethnocentrism is often exploited to foster conflict... and to promote the power of a particular group. History shows us that promoting an "us versus them" perspective, political, religious, and other groups foster discrimination and conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Social conflict and wars usually have ethnocentrism at their core, which over time usually proves to be self-destructive for all concerned.

Can better understandings of others' life experience avoid conflicts that drain the resources and well-being of all parties, and instead promote cooperative relations between peoples to the mutual advantage of all?So here we have a paradox: we falsely assume because we are not even aware we are assuming... and furthermore, it is the normal thing to do. We can not be ethnocentric, and we cannot will it away or make ourselves have an entirely open attitude. Is it ever possible not to be ethnocentric?

So what can we do about ethnocentrism?Addressing ethnocentrism is not a matter of trying not to be ethnocentric. This is an impossible task since we will never experience every life situation of everyone around the world. We will always have our assumptions about life based on our existing limited experience. So a much more productive approach is to catch ourselves when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as we seek to develop better understandings.


44 | P a g e


In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases, but rather the recognition and control of biases. The scientific process helps us have a clearer view of what we do understand in the context of what we do not understand. Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life experience, but it is possible to recognize this bias and control for it... so that we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings. This calls for us to develop our learning skills, but it can be done. Many of us know people who have moved to other societies and have learned to become functional in their new social settings, evidence that it is possible to develop more grounded understandings. Anthropologists, of course, have worked on systematically developing these skills for well over a century.

The first step in developing more balanced understandings is to recognize that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming something that is not the case and is out of context. How can we consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In this case, how can we know when we are being biased?

One of the most efficient ways for recognizing that ethnocentrism is inhibiting our understandings is to watch for reactions. Reactions tell us that we are assuming something and that our assumptions are not working.

We can always observe our reactions. When we have negative reactions towards others (such as thinking "that does not make sense" or "that is wrong," or feeling offended or confused, etc.), these are clues that our assumptions are not working in the situation. For example, we may consider Cree Indians are "unfriendly" because they are often nonexpressive in social situations, but recognizing our reaction can provide an opportunity to understand Cree values better on self-control which can be adaptive when a small family group has to be self-sufficient in a winter camp far from others' help. Observing our positive reactions towards others (such as thinking "that is nice" or "that is wonderful," or feeling pleased or satisfied) can also help us to be aware that we are not understanding. For example, Anglos frequently think the Inuit are "happy" and "friendly" because they smile a lot in social situations, but recognizing this reaction can provide an opportunity to understand better Inuit social values which are adaptive where subsistence is based on cooperative hunting.

We can also observe their reactions. If we blissfully go on in our misconceptions, but they do not respond the way we would, this is also an important clue that our assumptions are not working in the situation. Again, their reactions may be both active and adverse. For example, if a Cree shows gratification when we give him a gift, recognizing his reaction can provide an opportunity to understand better adaptive Cree values on economic leveling (rather than assuming that our "generosity" has been duly recognized). Also, if an Inuk responds to our


45 | P a g e


inquiry about how to keep our shoulders warm while spending weeks on a mid-winter hunting trip with a surprised "You mean you want to be warm all over?", recognizing his reaction can provide an opportunity to understand better Inuit concepts of self and the environment (rather than providing us with the desired "answer" to maintaining our concept of physical comfort).

In general, reactions tell us first about us. Why do we think people should be "friendly"? should appreciate material goods? Should feel warm all over? When we refer to others as "primitive" or "superstitious," what are we saying about our premises that we value in life? When we idealize others as being "simple" or "not wasting anything," what are we saying about the problems we perceive in our way of life? When others consider us as "technologically skilled" or "selfish," what does this say about us that we may never have realized? Cross-cultural encounters revealing more about our perspectives, values, and emotional investments than about others, and so provide us unique opportunities to learn more about ourselves.

Once we realize that we are not understanding, we are now in a better position to control our biases and to seek more accurate and balanced understandings.

The first step involves an attitude: we are the learners. In this process, we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better understandings. They are the ones who do know what their life experience is like... we are asking them to help us understand better. The best method is to ask for their explanations about what they do or say. ("Can you help me understand X better?") In particular, avoid posting questions that impose our realities and bound their realities. (For example, not "Why do you use 'green'?") Also, we should give people an out, and respect their right not to share with us (just as we may not want to share things that are 'private' or 'sacred'). If we appreciate that their life experience can be as valid for them as ours is for us, acknowledge that we may be misunderstanding, and ask them to help us understand, most people are more than willing to help us understand better. (This is a lesson I learned primarily from the Inuit, and many others have contributed to it since.)

Next, we have to ask two sets of questions (first to ourselves) to provide more insights into life experience in their context:

(1) What are their meanings about the behavior and situation? (In anthropological terms, what is their epic experience?) This includes both their cognitive views and their emotional feelings. Essentially this involves inquiring about their perspectives on their life experience, including specific cognitive views about colors and the


46 | P a g e


structure of the Universe, feelings about social relationships and proper behavior, and every other area of cultural life. Also, observing what they are not ready to talk about can open new insights about their introspection and sense of self or about why they consider certain rituals to be secret. We need to keep in mind that there are many meanings of any given behavior and that these are often very deep in people's subconscious and are often difficult to put into words. For instance, how would we explain to someone from another culture what "freedom" means to Americans? Usually, it is these differences in meanings that are the basis of ethnocentrism.

(2) What are the adaptive functions of the behavior and situation? (In anthropological terms, what is their etic experience?) How does this help the group adapt to life challenges (ecologically, biologically, economically, socially, psychologically, etc.)? This is the question which is usually not asked on a common level, yet is the one that can provide the greatest insights and understandings. For example, some people may accept that a group's belief that witchcraft causes illness is meaningful to them (rather than simply writing this off as "superstitious"). However, they may fail to consider that such beliefs often have important functions in these groups. For example, the character and behavior of "witches" define norms of socially unacceptable and disruptive deviancy, and in contrast, also defines "good" behavioral standards for the group. Alson this serves as a mechanism of social control, because people are afraid of being accused of witchcraft if they step out of accepted boundaries of behavior. If we did not ask about the functions of beliefs in witchcraft, we would never develop insights like understanding that such views can help promote constructive behavior that helps the whole group adapt. A particular meaning may have an important function in another area of life, such as a religious belief in witchcraft having a major social function. We also need to keep in mind that there are many functions of any given cultural practice, including ecological, biological, economic, social, and psychological functions helping a group adapt to life challenges. "What are the adaptive functions?" is the question that is not asked, but which usually leads to the greatest insights into others' cultural system.

Asking about the meanings and functions of behavior is not a matter of "insiders" or "outsiders," however. We can analyze the meanings of our behavior, which are highly complex and normally seated deeply in our subconscious, as with our idea of "freedom." We can also analyze the functions of our behavior. For example, why is "freedom" such an important American value? how does it help us adapt? Sometimes outsiders can see things we do not usually see because they are contrasting our behavior with others' ways, but being an insider does not preclude members of any group from understanding their behavior.


47 | P a g e


When we start asking about how others' ways are meaningful and functional to its participants, we come to realize that there are many valid ways in which human beings can experience life.

What can we do when recognizing ethnocentrism in others? We can follow the same process, and ask them what they think the meanings involved are? The functions? Uusually this brings the focus to more critical awareness and understandings.When we encounter ethnocentrism being promoted by particular groups, we can ask ourselves and those around us "Why are they doing this?" What function does promoting ethnocentrism and sowing conflict serve for this group? Exposing ulterior motives behind the group's rhetoric and actions.

Perhaps no one can ever have a complete understanding of another people, without fully experiencing everything he or she experience. However, this does not mean we cannot develop a functional understanding, to interact successfully with others. The many immigrants who have become useful members of our society demonstrate this is possible, as well as anthropologists and others who have become functional members of other groups. One goal that is achievable, however, is to make sure that what we what we do understand is valid and balanced in the context of recognizing what we do not understand.How can we develop these skills? Like other life skills, practice at every opportunity helps us develop our abilities to catch ourselves being ethnocentric and asking right questions to understand others' cultural behavior better.

How does all this concern the idea of relativism, a prominent value in anthropology?

"Relativism" usually means not judging others' ways and accepting them as equal to our own. May this be a positive value regarding interethnic relations, though it is often unrealistic since we cannot avoid ethnocentrism. We doMnot necessarily have to agree with others' ways, and we have the right to our ways since they provide significant meanings and adaptive functions for us.The real issue of relativism, I believe, is at what point is one group justified in intervening in the behavior of another group? There are areas where most people around the world believe there is little justification, such as how an ethnic group defines a desirable marriage partner. There are also areas where most people think there is significant


48 | P a g e


justification, as with genocide and atrocities that violate international principles of human rights. Also, there are areas where most people readily accept aid to meet catastrophic circumstances, like relief supplies for earthquake victims.

There is a wide gray area in between where different opinions abound, such as "free trade" which fosters both investment opportunities and child labor. Who is right in these circumstances? There are few absolute answers, but there are some guiding principles included in the International Declaration of Human Rights can apply in evaluating what to do. What are the community positions about the situation? Most groups have norms that are both meaningful and functional. If they promote well-being within and across groups, then we have to ask what right we have to intervene. If situations arise that jeopardize the adaptive balance within and across groups, there may be some room for addressing the situation, as long as it includes all the groups concerned and it is made clear whose well-being is being served on the part of all parties involved. As indicated, the world community has reached an international consensus about human rights and world functioning and balances.

We need to be careful, however, in how to be involved. There are many examples of people using stated values to justify their vested interests, as with efforts to "civilize" or "develop" other countries, which has promoted access to raw materials and new markets for their industries. There are also many examples of people being sincerely well-meaning towards others (regarding their values) with dire unforeseen consequences, such as introducing medical technologies which undermine local social structures and cohesiveness. Whose interests are being served the most? What is the overall impact on the group's adaptation?Before we act, we need to evaluate several issues:

What is our basis for becoming involved? What are our cultural views involved? Our values? Our vested interests? Even where others share "justice," "health," "standards of living," and other views, they exist in different contexts of cultural meanings and functions. We are still acting from our values, and do we have the right to decide they are valid for them? Why do we want to "help"? We can be more efficient in determining mutual solutions if we can control for our life views, and recognize what we want to get out of the results.

What are their meanings and functions regarding the situation? What do they want? What are the likely outcomes for them? What do they get out of the results? Where we have more valid understandings, we have a more sound basis for identifying the common overlap areas where effective agreements and solutions can be reached.

Self-determination is one of the most effective means of social change for all parties concerned. Who is in the best position for understanding what is best for them? We all make mistakes, but they are our mistakes, and we have the The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

49 | P a g e


opportunity to develop from them. If we decide for others, then they will never have the chance to test their initiative in doing what is best for themselves, to develop their judgments, to learn from their mistakes. Also, it is when people are denied the legitimacy of their life goals that they may turn to radical means outside accepted practice like terrorism. I believe our most effective role is to support them in achieving their goals where these overlap ours.

In the long run, hasty "solutions" that impose one side's views about the situation rarely work. How many times have we enthusiastically acted with high hopes, only to realize later that there were unforeseen and unwanted consequences that we may have generated? The most effective resolutions are those that negotiate the common areas which allow each party validation of their ways, where the solution is desired by each party, and, of course, where each party is able to make a contribution.

Interethnic encounters, then, can be an opportunity.One of Anthropology's greatest contributions is this concept of ethnocentrism and how to recognize and control for ethnocentrism so we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings of other cultural ways and ourselves.A standard scientific principle is that diversity is adaptive. The more different resources a group has, the more potentials it has for adapting to life challenges. We have come to realize this in ecodiversity, but perhaps we still have to realize this regarding ethnic diversity. The more different ways of experiencing life available to a society, the more resources it has for meeting adaptive challenges. One of the United State's greatest strengths is its ethnic diversity. We have available within our society adaptive resources from peoples all over the world, available to contribute to our continued adaptation.

When we encounter people from other ethnic backgrounds, we have an opportunity to learn new ways of seeing and experiencing life which we never knew existed. In a larger framework, we can learn the tremendous potentials humans have for being human. These potentials also exist for us, possibilities that we never knew we could be, such as looking at life in a complementary perspective instead of as an inherent conflict; and, on the negative side, possibilities that we want to be sure that we not foster, such as the brutality exhibited by average young American men as they massacred Vietnamese civilians at Mi Lai. We can also better understand ourselves, by contrasting our ways with other life experiences and asking about our meanings and functions.The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

50 | P a g e


When we go beyond ethnocentrism, there are whole new areas of understanding the possibilities in how all humans can experience life... lessons that can provide us with new opportunities for better experiencing life.

For more ideas that can help us understand our own and others' cultural behavior, see: Core Concepts In Understanding the Human Experience.Recognizing and controlling for ethnocentrism and expanding our understandings of our own and others' human behavior involves critical thinking. For more guidelines on this process, see: What Makes a Good Learner?I hope that this discussion is useful to you as you seek to be a good learner and to build mutually beneficial inter-ethnic relations in life. Ken Barger


51 | P a g e

http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/learning.htm

http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/concepts.htm

Trust Based Management Leadership Chart 12.2016

Documents

Transcript of Trust Based Management Leadership Chart 12.2016