Connecting large groups without losing individuality

Transcription

1 Connecting large groups without losing individuality The Group Paradox Riho Alas INSEAD November 2016 Thesis written as part of the requirements for the INSEAD Executive Master in Coaching and Consulting for Change 1

2 I Abstract The aim of the thesis is to explore the factors that may hinder facilitation of connections among people in large groups or teams, without losing their individuality. To connect large groups, we should build group value systems that are sincere and at the same time flexible, which brings trust to the whole group. Previous research (Ibarra, 2015: 55) and findings from this thesis indicate that there are two different types of people in large groups. One type, called chameleons, change their colour, meaning that they are always taking on roles the groups are expecting from them, using acting and entertainment. The other type, true-to-selfers, are always transparent and sincerely express what they really think and feel. There is a gap in comprehension between the two groups, as they both think they are authentic and perceive the other group as fake or immoral. They are both anchored to their own values and if we ask them to act according to the group values, they might feel that they are imposters or are losing their psychological safety. For the group or team to perform effectively, we need both types, and for that we need to diminish the gap between the two groups. They need to accept the group value systems in a way that feels authentic to them; in other words, so that they believe there is alignment between their natural style and their assigned behaviour in the group. This action research thesis addresses two questions: 1) why are these individual value systems equally important in large groups, and 2) how can we build psychological safety for both types of value systems? 2

3 II Keywords Large groups, individuality, perceived authenticity, individual value systems, individual values affirmation, psychological safety, identity, sincerity, flexibility, the group paradox. 3

4 Table of Contents I Abstract 2 II Keywords 3 III Introduction 5 IV Research aims and objectives 10 V Literature review 13 VI Methodology 17 VII Description of the research setting 19 VIII Data gathering and reporting 24 IX Findings and discussion 33 X Limitations 45 XI Future research 46 XII Conclusion 47 XIII Bibliography 49 4

5 III Introduction The aim of the thesis is to explore the factors that may hinder facilitation of connections among people in large groups or teams, without losing their individuality. To connect large groups, we should build group value systems that are sincere and at the same time flexible, which brings trust to the whole group. Theoretically it should be achieved by building authentic groups or organisations, but there are some difficulties in making the groups sincere and flexible at the same time. It is possible when we manage to build trust and safety into groups, and all individuals with different value systems work efficiently together. Manfred Kets de Vries has written many books and articles about authentic leadership. For example in the Organisations on the Couch (Kets de Vries, 2004: 199), he says that the challenge for twenty-first-century leadership is to create organisations that possess these authentizotic qualities. Another way to connect the groups is to take a values-driven approach. Richard Barrett has released two books recently (Barrett, 2013 and 2014) about the valuesbased approach to unleash human potential. Barrett (2014: 95) indicates that values-based decision making allows you to create an authentic way of operating in the world because you no longer hide your feelings. However some theories show that it is not so simple. Previous research (Ibarra, 2015) indicates that there is an Authenticity Paradox. This means that the definition of the authenticity is different for most of us, and what one person perceives as authentic might not be perceived as authentic by another person. Ibarra (2015: 55) describes two psychological profiles chameleons and true-to-selfers. Chameleons are naturally able and willing to adapt to the demands of the situation without feeling fake. The true-to-selfers tend to express what they really think and feel. This theory is very well supported by the working paper (Guillen, L., Karelaia, N., Leroy, H., 2016) The Authenticity Gap: When Authentic Individuals Are Not Regarded as Such and Why It Really Matters. 5

6 There is a gap in comprehension between the two group value systems and behaviours, as they both think they are authentic and perceive other group as fake or immoral. They are both anchored to their own values and if we ask them to act according to the group values, they might feel that they are at risk of losing their psychological safety. As authenticity is perceived differently, it is very hard to build psychological safety into the groups for everyone. According to Amy Edmondson (1999: 354) psychological safety is a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up. According to Project Aristotle in Google (Duhigg, 2016), psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work. If we push either group to accept each other s values, they resist, because it breaks their psychological safety and make them feel fake, immoral or even as if they are imposters. A recent study (Kinias & Sim, 2016) shows that a brief personal values writing exercise can improve performance in competitive environments. It provides clear evidence that organisations should implement this tool. To connect large groups without losing individuality we need to build an authentic group, but that it is very difficult to do. The definition of authenticity is different for each of us because of different individual value systems, and even when the definition is clear, authenticity is perceived differently. For the group or team to perform effectively, we need everyone to participate, and for that to happen, we need to diminish the gap between the two groups. For that they need to accept group value systems in a way that feels authentic to them; in other words, so that they believe there is alignment between their natural style and their assigned behaviour in the group. This action research thesis addresses two questions: 1) Why are these individual value systems equally important in large groups? 2) How can we build psychological safety for both types of value systems? 6

7 I am looking for an ideal group, and I have three hypotheses for my research questions. First, to form an ideal group, we need them both chameleons with their own authentic value system and true-to-selfers with their own authentic value system. Without chameleons, it could be very hard to form any group; they give links to the group and behave like glue. At the same time we need true-to-selfers, as they give sincerity and individuality to the groups. Second, through increased awareness, both groups start to understand and accept each other. If they accept that both groups exist and both groups need each other for forming larger groups without losing individuality, then they have already started to accept the first group norm. This leads to increased psychological safety in the group. Third, just by expressing and sharing their own individual values, they affirm their own value systems and identities. Then they are more easily ready to accept any group values and roles. This leads to increased psychological safety and efficiency of the groups. For me, action research is the most suitable research method. Learning by doing and experimenting gives many insights and gives me time to develop them. Building group norms through action research and experimenting might be one good way to increase psychological safety in the groups. My insider research is inspired by the Best Western INSEAD case (Florent-Treacy, Saccarelli, Kets de Vreis, 2013) where the programme was designed to help individuals explore their own personal and professional goals through expressing their own individual values. I was a facilitator for two insider groups one for the key employees and another for the family owners of the company. Both groups had several workshops where they discussed individual values, definitions of authenticity, and chameleons and true-to-selfers. The data was collected during the workshops, but also later through questionnaires, and interviews with most of the participants. The 7

8 employee group had twelve participants; the family owners group was smaller, with six participants. I was aware of the advantages but also the drawbacks of being an insider in both groups. One advantage was that it gave me the opportunity to reach into people s real and deeper feelings. During the workshops, the participants first discussed each other about their individual values, and later, the definition of authenticity and the theory of chameleons and true-to-selfers were discussed. The questionnaire measured how authentic each participant felt when they presented, what their own individual values were and how they assessed the others presentations, how authentic they were perceived as being, and personal psychological safety levels before and after the programme. During the interviews, participants could say what they did not like about the programme, what resistance, upset and anxieties they felt, but also the benefits, such as change, learning or development they recognised after the workshops. In the middle of the action research, I discovered that to discuss the definitions of authenticity and the gap between different value systems, I needed a model. Therefore, in workshop discussions with the family group, I created the model of the Group Paradox, and in the final workshop I presented it to the employees group, which really improved discussions and awareness. My action research confirmed that these subgroups exist in the large groups and that participants were not aware of the reasons for the lack of trust. A values affirmation made them realise that sometimes we judge others values just to confirm or push our own ones, which made much less sense after the programme. After the workshops, I identified two things we can do to build psychological safety for both types of value systems: first, share, express and affirm personal values to anchor personal identity in the face of identity threat (Kinias & Sim, 2016); second, explain and build clarity and awareness by explaining and discussing the Group Paradox model that both types of values systems exist and that they are both equally important in large groups. 8

9 Even though the awareness increased, some challenges remained. This suggested to me that even when we consciously understand the importance of different value systems, something unconscious stops us to change our behaviour, meaning that true-to-selfers to be more flexible and adaptive and chameleons to be more sincere and open to their own opinions. A topic that came out of the interviews with the participants after the workshops was the positive effect of learning. When I asked them what they found to be positive in the programme, many of them gave learning as a first reply. When we had gone through all these three stages individual values affirmation, understanding the group paradox and learning together in the group we already had a high level of psychological safety in the group. Then we did one additional thing and agreed on a group norm, which was accepted by everyone. I learned how hard it is to agree on a norm in a large group, even though it looks simple. In groups with variety and diversity of value systems, a simple norm to accept and trust each other s value systems substantially increases psychological safety. 9

10 IV Research aims and objectives The aim of the thesis is to connect large group value systems in an authentic way, showing that all individual value systems are equally important, and that we should build certain norms in the authentic environment to increase the psychological safety of the whole group in such a way as to be acceptable to the true-to-selfers as well as to the chameleons. Through experimenting in the workshops, people start to realise that there are different value systems in the groups, and that both groups truly think they are authentic. Participants become aware, through experimentation, that in large groups both value systems are equally important, because for a trusting group we need both sincerity and flexibility. If workshop participants understand that both groups really need each other in the large groups, then they are ready to accept some norms that will help connect them, while allowing individuals to remain true to their natural values. This brings safety into the groups. My hypothesis is that there are three ways to build psychological safety for both types of value systems: 1) Express individual values; share values and reflections. 2) Increase self-awareness through experimental workshop discussion; introduce the model of sincerity and flexibility in the groups and trust between both types of value systems. 3) Agree on at least one group norm: that both groups with different value systems accept each other with increased trust between them. During the workshops, every participant has the opportunity to introduce his or her own values with the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954). In this process, the participant describes their own values in the format freely chosen, then others ask clarifying questions, and then the group explores reactions and emotions, and offers observations, reflections and insights. As the format of describing the values is a choice, the presenter needs to decide whether to 10

11 present their genuinely held values or try to adapt them to the audience s wishes and the circumstances. The participant has the choice to make a presentation that aligns with how they really think and feel. Alternatively, they can act and entertain in order to adapt to the situation. The rationale for this method is closely connected to the study (Kinias & Sim, 2016) that found that expressing, sharing and reflecting personal values dramatically improves performance. I am facilitating the action research and have the opportunity to ask the question: What is the definition of the authenticity? As the definition of the authenticity is not clear, then it might become not only interesting, but also a learning experience for the group. There are certainly some people in the group who define authenticity as true-to-self behaviour, but others define it like the chameleons who act and entertain so truly and genuine that they adapt perfectly to the situation without feeling fake. Also, someone might point out that the authenticity we feel is not necessarily what others perceive. As different definitions come out, different realities can be discussed in the groups and this process improves the awareness of the participants and also the learning that takes place. In the workshops there is discussion about the chameleons and true-to-selfers: who they are, what their value systems are and how to define these two different groups. The aim of this discussion is that people start to realise that both individual value systems exist; they both feel authentic. Group members begin to see that both value systems can be equally important. Later I am asking the participants to fill out a questionnaire and measure how authentic they thought they were during the presentation of their individual values and to what degree they were perceived by others as authentic. This allowed me to compare their perceptions of their own authenticity with the impressions of the others. My hypothesis is that there is no direct correlation between describing your values honestly and having them be perceived as authentic. Some people perceive well performed entertainment as authentic and the content itself as less important. It means that we cannot include only true-to-selfers or chameleons in 11

12 the groups to be perceived as authentic, we should find a good combination of the two elements. Another thing I am measuring is the level of psychological safety by selfperception before and after the workshops. I have a hypothesis that after participants express and identify individual personal values, psychological safety will increase. During the workshops, I am observing all comments about resistance, upset and anxieties, and collect the data. Afterwards I am interviewing the people who showed their upset verbally or in the form of action, by deciding not to come to some workshops. My hypothesis is that their resistance might be connected with the individual psychological safety in the group. Therefore, during the interviews I am also measuring by self-perception the personal psychological safety level in the group before the action research programme and after it. The hypothesis is that in the beginning the psychological level was low, because there were feelings of uncertainty in the groups, but later on when the group norms became clearer, the psychological safety level will increase. It might be that in an authentic environment, many people lose their psychological safety, because this environment is not natural for them. But when we build some group norms in the authentic environment, psychological safety comes back. If people are true chameleons, then for them, it feels unsafe to talk about their values in the way the true-to-selfers do, whereas for a person who is used to expressing opinions directly, it is unsafe to start acting and entertaining. During the interviews and though the observations, I am also collecting the positive comments from participants in the programme. Through their own individual values affirmation and sharing, and also through listening to and reflecting on other values, participants may experience increased awareness and self-confidence, as a result of which they might be able to give good feedback. 12

13 V Literature review There are two major theories of how to build an ideal large group without losing the participants individuality. One theory argues that it can be done through building authentizotic organisations and another favours a values-based approach. Relatively little is known about what resistance, upset and anxieties people feel when we apply these authentic and value-based methods, or how their psychological safety is affected when we try to push them out from their comfort zone. Even less research has been done on how we can increase the psychological safety of participants in large groups and how to diminish anxiety and resistance while still keeping the individuality and efficiency of the groups. Manfred Kets de Vries has done extensive research on defining authentizotic and creating authentizotic organisations. He claims (Kets de Vries, 2004: 199) that the challenge for twenty-first-century leadership is to create organisations that possess authentizotic qualities. He says that, as a workplace label, authenticity implies that an organisation has a compelling connective quality for its employees in its vision, mission, culture and structure. This creates healthy individuals and the best companies to work for (Kets de Vries, 2001). Richard Barrett has released two books recently (2013 and 2014) about the valuesbased approach to unleashing human potential. He indicates that (Barrett, 2014: 95) values-based decision making allows us to create an authentic way of operating in the world because we no longer hide our feelings. This can even lead to evolutionary development. According to Barrett (2014: 27), there are seven stages in our psychological development and not our needs change as we move from one level to the next, our values and behaviours also change. Another theory suggests that to be an authentic member of the group we need to be present: Halpern and Lubar refer to the ability to connect authentically with the thoughts and feelings of others (Halpern and Lubar, 2003: 8). However even Barrett (2014) points out that the shift from conscious belief-based decision making to values-based decision making is not easy. He says that various 13

14 types of upset can be experienced, including resistance, anxiety, impatience, frustration, anger and even rage. Another study (Cable, Gino and Staats, 2013) indicates that organisations led to better performance with encouraging employees to express their authentic selves. The employees learning to be more engaged and satisfied with their work and led to good relationships and increased socialisation. However, this study also shows that authenticity creates a tension for the organisations. More critical studies focus on the problems and that the definition of authenticity is not clear. The general theory suggests that we should be true-to-selves, but Ibarra (2015: 54) asks, How can you be true to future self that is still uncertain and unformed? She also points to a Mark Snyder study (1974) that discusses two psychological profiles the chameleons who adapt to the demands of a situation without feeling fake and the true-to-selfers who tend to express what they really think and feel. It gets even more complicated with the study The Authenticity Gap (Guillen, Karelaia and Leroy, 2016), which states that there is a gap between felt and perceived authenticity. It means that the chameleons and the true-to-selfers both feel that they act authentically, but are not perceived to be authentic by each other. Ibarra (2015: 54) also indicates that there is confusion in making values-based choices. She says, When we move into bigger roles, values shaped by past experiences can lead us astray. Another study (Gino, Kouchaki and Galinsky, 2015) demonstrates that authenticity is directly linked to morality. If people violate their own values, they feel immoral. It leads to the paradox that if the person s value is to be true-to-self, she or he can not violate it and start entertaining and acting, because it feels immoral, but on the other hand, he or she is perceived as immoral by chameleons, who feel that being true-to-self is immoral, because it violates their values. Conversely, chameleons act and perform according to their values, but it are perceived as immoral by true-to-selfers. 14

15 Ibarra in her study (2015) calls this opposition the authenticity paradox and explains why true-to-selfers may seem fake to chameleons and chameleons seem immoral to true-to-selfers, even though both groups act truly according to their values and, according to our definition, authentically. So if the true-to-selfers start to act and entertain or the chameleons are pushed to express what they really feel, then both groups feel like imposters (Ibarra, 2015). Manfred Kets de Vries says (1990 and 2006: 161) that to some extent we are all imposters we all play roles on the stage of life. Showing our true self is dangerous at times. It might also work the other way: acting and entertaining is dangerous for true-to-selfers. Paradox may be defined as a contradiction that follows correct deduction from consistent premises (Watzlawick, Beavin, Jackson, 2011: 173). They say that perhaps the most famous of all semantical antinomies is that of the man who says to himself, I am lying. The aim of the thesis is to connect large groups that include chameleons and trueto-selfers. We want to stay authentic and not to break their individuality and identities by pushing them to feel like imposters. How can this be done? Amy Edmondson conducted a study (1999) that introduces the construct of team psychological safety a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Psychological safety is (Edmondson, 1999: 354) a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up. She suggested that psychological safety and ways to promote it will be increasingly relevant in future research on teams. Google used this wisdom in their Project Aristotle (Duhigg, 2016). Their aim was to increase the efficiency of teams, and they found that psychological safety was the crucial element (and the only one they found) which increases the team s success. They found out that establishing psychological safety is, by its very nature, somewhat messy and difficult to implement. They specified which norms are most critical. However, Karissa Tracker (2016: 192) confirms in her book that these factors are simple, but not easy practically. Creating rules is easy. Keeping them top of mind and living them out is the tough part. 15

16 So the theoretical framework supports my research by saying that we can connect the chameleons and true-to-selfers by agreeing on some norms that build psychological safety between the two types. It is not easy to do, because both groups chameleons and true-to-selfers think and are authentic, which means true to self. Every trial to try to establish some norms or rules makes them feel inauthentic. It goes against their value systems, which means they might lose some identity and feel like imposters. Turquet (1975: 93) says that the entry stage to the behaviour of large group can be described as singleton. As he tries to interact with the large group and its individual members the singleton seeks to make something of the situation, to give it meaning, to make a construct of it (Turquet, 1975: 95). A recent study (Kinias & Sim, 2016) shows that a brief personal values writing exercise can improve performance in competitive environments. It provides clear evidence that organisations should implement this tool. This study supports my proposition that expressing personal values helps an individual to anchor their identity in the face of identity threat. Action research is an orientation to knowledge creation (Huang, 2010: 93). This is a way to establish norms through action and experiment. It is effective to find these group norms in an authentic way, by experimenting and discussions. It is also supported by Edmondson s research (1999) that says that the team efficiency is positively associated with team learning behaviour, controlling for the effects of team psychological safety. 16

17 VI Methodology One aim of the thesis is to look for an ideal group that has both sincerity and flexibility. My earlier observations from the Saint George Triangle are as follows: a multi-party simulation (Kets de Vries, 2006) from the EMCCC module five showed that anxieties, upset and resistance arise in larger group settings, which might be caused by paradox inside the groups. Earlier studies (Ibarra, 2015) suggest there are subgroups in the larger groups: chameleons and true-to-selfers. Some researchers (Kinias & Sim, 2016) indicate that expressing personal values helps individuals to anchor their identity in the face of identity threat. In other words, we can connect large groups through expressing, sharing and reflecting on individual values. I am using a qualitative method, specifically insider action research, to understand the model of different value systems, how they influence our behaviour and why these two value systems are equally important. For that, a group workshop is the best place, one where I am both participant and facilitator, and we experiment and learn together. An important part of the workshop is the expression, sharing of and reflecting on individual values. I address this with the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), where participants present their own individual values, then others ask clarifying questions, and finally there is group reflection. Critical incident technique is essentially a procedure for gathering certain important facts concerning behaviour in defined situations (Flanagan, 1954: 335). Studies (Kinias and Sim, 2016) say that sharing individual values is good for selfconfidence and to anchor one s identity. In my research, by listening to other people articulate their values, participants start to understand why value systems are so different and why different value systems are equally important in large groups. Additionally, the groups discuss the definition of authenticity and theories about the chameleons and true-to-selfers. During the action research, I made my own model of the Group Paradox and later shared it with the groups, where we had discussions and I received feedback. 17

18 In my research there were two insider groups, one with 12 participants who were company employees and the other with 6 participants who were family owners. With the bigger group, we had four workshops and with the smaller one three. Data was collected during the workshops from the reflections and discussions. After the workshops I gave a questionnaire to most of the participants to collect data on how authentic they were during their presentations, to compare it to how authentic they were perceived as being. The level of psychological safety before and after the programme was also measured. In the interviews I collected data on the resistance, upset and anxieties they felt during the programme, but also the benefits they saw in the workshops. My action research workshop setting was inspired by the INSEAD Best Western Italy case study (Florent-Treacy, Saccarelli, Kets de Vries, Vitry d Avaucourt, 2013). I was aware of the advantages and the drawbacks of being an insider in the groups. 18

19 VII Description of the research setting The action research was inspired by Best Western INSEAD case Make a Difference program for all employees in Italy (Florent-Treacy, Saccarelli, Kets de Vreis, Vitry d Avaucourt, 2013), where the program was designed to help individuals explore their personal and professional goals through expressing their individual values. The primary goal of the programme was to make BW Italy a more authentizotic organisation, a term that describes workplaces in which people feel authenticity in the work they do, and vitality in the role they play (Florent-Treacy, Saccarelli, Kets de Vreis, Vitry d Avaucourt, 2013). I elected to run a similar programme in my own company in Estonia. It has a head office in Tallinn, with two factories in Estonia. The main business is to produce and sell potting soils for growing plants internationally, with main markets in Europe, Far-East and Gulf countries. Within the Estonian group, there are about 100 employees. My father and I founded this family company in From the start my father was Chair of the company, and I was CEO until 2015, when my father retired and I became the Chair. The company is managed today by an independent management team without any family members. Since 2015, we have used a family business parallel planning process with the primary benefit of aligning family and business plans so that they can mutually support each other s needs and goals (Carlock, Ward, 2010). Therefore I decided to run the action research programme in separate groups, one with family owners and another with key employees. The family owners group was smaller, with six participants, including me. It consisted of my father (age 80), mother (age 70), my wife, my sister and her husband. Even though the company was founded by my father and me, the others have had a huge influence on our values, culture and decisions, and therefore they were included in the action research. The employee group was bigger, with 12 participants, including me, 4 men and 8 women. It consisted of the key employees of the management team, sales, 19

20 production, finance, quality control and research and development departments. In the beginning, two key technicians were also invited, but they were not motivated to participate and did not start the programme. I was the facilitator of the both groups, whose working language was Estonian. The advantage of being an insider is that I know the people, and to some extent they are more psychologically safe with me and open to sharing their feelings. I am also aware that for some people it might be reverse they cannot be open in a group where the founder is facilitating, but in my experience, they do not concentrate on the owner, but take the authenticity of the overall group. It was hard to facilitate and take notes at the same time, and to find someone to help me, mainly because of language. Even the people who could speak English, I am sure, were more open in Estonian, where they can more easily express their thoughts and feelings. Before the programme I met with both of the groups and they voted on whether they wanted to participate in this action research. There were some doubts, but both groups collectively decided to participate in programme and spend time on it. The idea of the workshops was that they take place in unfamiliar places, such as off-site meeting rooms for the bigger group and restaurants for the smaller one. The reason for going off-site was that it helps to come away from the daily routine; it offers a space for new thoughts and emotions. We planned four almost full-day workshops for employees, and three half-day workshops for the family owners. In fact, three workshops with the family owners took place in a restaurant in Tallinn; the first two employee workshops took place off-site, and the last two in our Tallinn office. For some, the office was convenient: they did not lose travel time. Also, holding workshops in the office was not a problem, as they were already used to the setting. The main aim for the workshops was sharing individual values in a manner inspired by the Best Western case (Florent-Treacy, Saccarelli, Kets de Vreis, Vitry d Avaucourt, 2013) and the research (Kinias & Sim, 2016) that supports the idea 20

21 that expressing personal values helps an individual to anchor their identity in the face of identity threat. For the method, I used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), meaning that the participant made his or her short presentation about individual values, then the group asked clarifying questions, and finally the group explored reactions and emotions, and offered observations, reflections and insights. The rules about how much the presentation should be prepared, how long it should be and what format it would follow were open, and anyone could chose the style he or she preferred. Two individual presentations per workshop were planned with the family owners group, and three presentations with the employees group. The rest of the time was reserved for discussions about the interrelated topics. The workshops with the family owners took place in March, August and September All participants did the presentation about personal values. Additionally, there were discussions about the definition of authenticity and an early draft of the Group Paradox model. Later on, I gave a questionnaire to and conducted an interview with each participant to collect additional information. The workshops with the employees took place in May, June, August and September Most of them participated in all the workshops, but some were missing for several reasons. Eight participants did the individual values presentation, but three declined. In the pre-workshop, we agreed that the sharing personal values was optional, so I am glad that the majority still decided to participate, so the numbers were sufficient for the research. The workshop structure started with reflections and continued with sharing of individual values using the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954). Normally, two to three presentations were planned per workshop, with each lasting one to two hours. In some cases there was a need to getting on the balcony (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002: 51) and reflect on what was going on with the group. This concept is summarized by Manoogian (2004: 22) as the ability to step back, see all the action, and take an 21

22 objective view of events, rather than a subjective, emotional, tunnel-vision perspective. Special sessions with both groups were planned for discussion about the definition of authenticity and the Group Paradox model. After the workshops, I had a short interview with each participant, and had them fill out a questionnaire to collect additional information. It took each of them minutes. This was action research, which is an orientation to knowledge creation with the practitioners (Huang, 2010). During the workshops, the Group Paradox model was cooking in my mind and in the final workshop I presented it for discussion: 22

23 The Group Paradox: look for an ideal large group Aim is to have the groups be at the same time Flexible and Sincere Important for trust and psychological safety. Most important is that everyone accepts at least one group norm or rule: Accept and trust different individual value systems. Second optional norm might be to: take charge in an unfamiliar role, for chameleons to be sincere and for true-to-selfers any other role. As they both feel authentic, they do not want to change their behaviour and mostly are not aware of the authenticity paradox. The authenticity paradox is that true-to-selfers are often perceived as fake (Ibarra, 2014), and chameleons are often perceived as immoral (Gino, Kouchaki, Galinski, 2015). They both are (they feel they are) authentic and natural according to their individual value system. Behaviour: naturally able and willing to adapt to the demands of situation without feeling fake Controlled by situational factors Values: flexible, adaptive Chameleons: they keep trying on different styles like new clothes until they find a good Behaviour: express what they really think Stick too long to comfortable behaviour Controlled by internal states Values: sincere, transparent, direct True-to-selfers: they do not adapt their styles, always express their truth and fit for themselves (Ibarra, 2015) what they really think (Ibarra, 2015) High-self monitors: such people may monitor (observe and control) their self-presentation and expressive behaviour For example theater actors (Snyder, 1974) Low-self-monitors: controlled by their affective stages, rather than monitored and moulded to fit the situation For example most extreme hospitalized psychiatic ward patients (Snyder, 1974) More liked by others Less liked by others 23

24 VIII Data gathering and reporting I expected some resistance to this long-term workshop setting and I organised pre-discussion with both groups to explain what we would be doing and why, and ask them to participate. The purpose of the employee workshop was explained as a journey to the formation of core company values. I gave them a choice: take the company values as set by management, which I called the shortcut, or take a long way. They were curious about the long way and I explained the setting, that first we would share individual values in critical incident technique format (Flanagan, 1954), which was known to the group already from previous workshops. The first reaction was not fully positive and I felt anxious. Some examples of the reactions were as follows: Why do we need that, waste of time, sharing our own values is like talking naked, it might be a dangerous way to form the company s core values and it might be a very slippery process. I observed that employees in higher positions were more doubtful and others were more supporting the long-term way. First more junior employees were more supportive, then also one management member started to support the idea, and afterwards the whole group decided to go for it, even though doubts remained for some participants. In the family owners group there were fewer emotions. I did the same thing: I explained why we needed to share individual values and they accepted my proposal. I think they just followed me without fully understanding the purpose. The pre-discussion was not planned to be part of the research, but I later realised that it was the first step. Therefore I took notes afterwards. In the employee group, some participants wanted to make their values presentation in the first workshop, but some were anxious about the fact that there was no format or rules for the sharing of values. Finally I sent information to some of them on the theory of values and a values, beliefs and behaviours exercise (Barrett, 2013: 195). I strongly suggested that 24

25 they not follow his structure, but present their individual values in their own way. One participant fully based his presentation on this exercise and another did the exercise beforehand. The others used their own structure. In total nine presentations were made, including by me, in three workshops. For all participants it was the first time sharing our individual values. With the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) it took about one and a half to two hours per person and it surprised everyone, how much there was to share, reflect on and discuss. With the morning reflections and other topics to discuss, there was only time for a maximum of three presentations per workshop. Everyone shared values very openly, and people felt safe in the room. Anyone I asked said that it made no difference to them that the owner of the company was in the room. The sharing showed that each participant had unique individual values. Everyone presented between three and ten values. Participants presented in a variety of ways and showed their personality. Some were well prepared and some trusted their intuition. Reflections were emotional, but polite and not judgemental. Everyone who gave a presentation later described it as a kind of relief and a good experience. Still, there was considerable anxiety, and some people did not participate in all the workshops. As the value sharing was voluntary, three women did not contribute, even though they participated actively in the workshops. I took notes on all the presentations and reflections. The family owners group felt not upset, but more confused about what the individual values really meant. They all had the will to share, but this exercise was the first time in their lives that they took the time to learn about individual values theory from the internet, independently, and not from me. This surprised me, as I know what strong values they all have, but they have never had to present them or reflect on them previously. 25

26 All the family owners participated in all three workshops. They all did the value sharing presentation, and the environment was more informal than the employees group. All our meetings were held in a restaurant to make a change from the everyday pattern. I took notes at all the presentations. As with the employee group, each set of values was completely different from the next. They all prepared for the presentation, and what was different from the employee group was that they used stories from the past to describe their individual values. In some cases, it was more like group coaching even though it started with values sharing. As our family is not normally very open to share stories, it was a pleasant surprise for everyone. One participant s presentation was different from all the others. She explained that the theory of individual values was not familiar to her and she went to Google to learn about this topic. Then she started her presentation with a 30-minute lecture about individual values that was profound and fascinating. Afterwards she reflected that she was happy and surprised that she had learned something new. The presentations with reflections took about one and a half to two hours per person and we managed to have two or three presentations per day. Adapting the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was not easy with them, as the presenter wanted to participate in the discussion, and I was flexible with them as all discussions were very informal. With both groups I used morning reflections and getting on the balcony (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002: 51). The first element of confusion arose for the employee group in the first workshop, with the meaning of the programme. As I had expected some anxiety and upset, I decided that we would get on the balcony (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002: 51) and I would let them talk out what they felt without any reflection from my side. It began after the first presentation of the workshop; comments were as follows: Why do we need that? Individual values are not proper to share with colleagues, it is like talking naked. I do not understand what is going on, it is not clear. There is a difference between home and work... confused... unusual... new. After they shared their feelings, the environment became safer and more comfortable again. 26

27 We had a second sharing of feelings at the end of the first day and the comments included the following key words and phrases: over expectation, people are different, anxiety as do not know the aim of the programme, the information might be used by someone, and diversity is good. It the third workshop, some employees shared that they were upset during the morning reflections. They said: I am nervous, feeling is weird, feelings and telling the truth makes us confused, it s too personal, it s strange to reflect, intimacy too high. At the second of the family workshops, one participant started to share that on her business trip to Sweden, she felt that everyone was different and the company workshop felt like a theatre to her. Everyone else was enthusiastic about making the company presentations and she felt like a fake. She commented: It was like theatre, brainwashing, immoral, I did not like that, what is wrong with me? She explained later that everyone was expecting her to take this acting role too, but it did not suit her. This was before we had discussions about authenticity and the Group Paradox. The person in the employee group who had referred to talking naked did her presentation in the third workshop. Then she gave feedback: everything had changed, she did not feel uncomfortable any more. She liked the programme; she found sharing useful. The exercise taught her about others and helped her understand them. It led to better partnership and cooperation. The three participants who did not make presentations became more reflective after each workshop. They gave feedback stating that they liked the programme and the fact that people were more open and talkative than usual. But they still did not want to share their personal values and I could not push them, as this was our first pre-discussion agreement. The definition of authenticity was a separate topic of discussion. In the Estonian language, there is no direct translation of the word authentic, so it was important to have a meaning for this word. 27

28 With the family group we discussed authenticity and its paradox in the context of Group Paradox, and with the employees, we touched on it in the third workshop for the first time. Participants commented on the word authentic in the following ways: sincere, natural, people are different, discussion of what sincerity means, open. One of the participants explained that if you have been authentic and others did not like it, you do not present yourself authentically. I shared one of the values to be authentic, then in the reflections they discussed what it might mean. Their comments included the following: self-integrity, sincere, it is toward yourself not always to others, some acting. In the Group Paradox discussion in the fourth workshop, the question What does authenticity still mean? came back. One participant said authenticity might be what you receive at birth and not so much the values you learn during your life. The majority agreed with the definition true to yourself, but one participant did not agree, and claimed that authentic is the person you can trust. There was a discussion in the group about whether we need both self-integrity and trust to be perceived as authentic, and most participants felt that we do. With the family group, we jumped directly to the Group Paradox discussion and the definition of authenticity emerged as part of it. I took notes on all discussions. One of the most important discussions we had at the third workshop with the employees concerned the Group Paradox model (described on page 23). As the model has many elements, I decided to prepare it beforehand, but opened it step by step to the group with discussion, feedback and reflection. The first time I recorded the discussion, which took about one and a half hours. My dilemma with opening the model was whether to start from the bottom by describing the chameleons and true-to-selfers or to begin from a holistic perspective and explain the aim for the ideal group. I decided first to introduce the aim of an ideal group that is sincere and flexible, and then broached the topic of chameleons and true-to-selfers. At the beginning we also had a discussion about the definition of paradox. 28

29 Later, while analysing the recorded materials, I realised that in the group there were people who clearly represented the true-to-selfers, some who were chameleons, and some who were in between. The true-to-selfers described chameleons as people, we cannot trust, invisible, betrayers, survivors, wind arrows, who have no principles, similar. Chameleons described themselves as people who can look in the mirror first. There was also a discussion about whether chameleons play themselves or act according to their values, and with the discussion came a common understanding that there are chameleons who are not acting, but are behaving according to their values, being flexible and adaptive. Chameleons described true-to-selfers as follows: say what they think, selfish, weird, self-destroying, fools, not trustworthy. The group was surprised to understand that if the chameleons are survivors then the extreme true-to-selfers are something opposite? One participant commented that if you say everything you think, you might be hospitalised. This connected with the high self-monitor and low self-monitor theory (Snyder, 1974). Participants clearly understood the categories of people, and examples of both of them existed in the workshop. It was interesting that each group described the other group as not trustworthy, despite saying that diversity is good and complimenting each other. We discussed whether it is possible to form a large group with only chameleons or only true-to selfers. Half of the group said it is possible and the other half said that both elements are important. The arguments for needing both were as follows: diversity is needed, one says things out loud and others smooth it over, chameleons are needed to avoid conflicts among true-to selfers. One participant still supported the true-to-selfers, saying: I do not like people who do not have opinions. Later she added: I like to argue with someone. I introduced the idea that the both groups can work well together if they agree on one group norm or rule. One participant immediately proposed that it could be accept, trust and honour everyone. Some people were confused, feeling that 29