STIMULATING AUTHENTICITY IN ORGANIZATIONS: A CASE
STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business 26 November 2012 MARIJ TULNER Studentnumber: 1614274 Agnietenstraat 67 6822 JL Arnhem tel.: +31 (0)6 13457633 e-mail: m.tulner@live.nl Supervisor/ university Dr. J. Rupert 2nd Supervisor/ university Dr. C. Reezigt
Supervisor/ field of study Drs. P. Pillen
2
ABSTRACT
Organizations as social systems are important for community forming. As employees spend much of their time at work, it seems important that they are able to feel authentic at work. As literature shows, much attention is given to the importance of authenticity, both for individuals (well-being) and for organizations (increased performance, lower turn-over). Authenticity is defined as being true to one’s own values and motives, and being open towards others. This research focuses on how organizations are able to stimulate authenticity at the workplace. By using a grounded theory approach, it turned out that the intervention (Development Center) which was used as a case study stimulated authenticity. Consequently, it was analyzed how design factors of the intervention stimulated authenticity components (self-awareness, balanced processing, authentic behavior and relational transparency). These factors were: intersubjective feedback, job-relatedness,
psychological safety, reflecting on trigger events, social interaction, active learning. This research shows that especially self-awareness is essential for stimulating authenticity. This can be
stimulated in an intervention by facilitating a reflection process in an environment in which participants feel the safety to open up. To actually transfer the insights into authenticity at work, it helps that an intervention is job related, gives the participant the possibility to apply feedback and can rely on the social support of the environment. This social support may be not only essential during an intervention, but might also be necessary to strengthen the awareness level and reinforce that people act in congruence with their internal values.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 5
1.1 Research Process ... 7
1.2 The Case Study ... 9
1.2.1 Kessels & Smit, the learning company ... 9
1.2.2 Process of the DC ... 9 1.2.3 Design of the DC ... 10 1.2.4 Research questions ... 12 2 THEORY ... 13 2.1 Introduction to Authenticity ... 13 2.1.1 Authenticity defined ... 13 2.2 Authenticity Components ... 14 2.2.1 Self-awareness ... 16 2.2.2 Balanced processing ... 17 2.2.3 Authentic behavior ... 17 2.2.4 Relational transparency ... 18
2.3 Factors which Stimulate Authenticity ... 19
2.3.1 Intersubjective feedback ... 19
2.3.2 Job-relatedness ... 20
2.3.3 Psychological safety ... 21
2.3.4 Reflecting on trigger events ... 22
2.3.5 Social interaction ... 24
2.3.6 Active learning ... 24
2.3.7 Conceptual model ... 26
3 METHODS ... 26
3.1 The Case Study: Client Organizations where the DC was Performed ... 27
3.2 Characteristics of the Research Group ... 28
3.3 The Research Method for Collecting Data ... 29
3.3.1 Focused interviews ... 29
4
3.4 Analyzing Data ... 30
3.4.1 Using matrices for analyzing the data ... 31
4 RESULTS ... 33
4.1 Authenticity as an Outcome of the Development Center ... 33
4.1.1 Self-awareness ... 33
4.1.2 Balanced processing ... 34
4.1.3 Authentic behavior ... 35
4.1.4 Relational transparency ... 36
4.1.5 Conclusion: does the DC stimulate authenticity? ... 37
4.2 How do the DC-Design Factors Stimulate Authenticity? ... 38
4.2.1 Intersubjective feedback ... 38
4.2.2 Job relatedness ... 39
4.2.3 Psychological safety ... 40
4.2.4 Reflecting on trigger events ... 41
4.2.5 Social interaction ... 42
4.2.6 Active Learning ... 43
4.2.7 Differences in outcomes ... 44
4.2.8 Conclusion ... 45
4.3 Empirical Model Based on the Results ... 48
5 DISCUSSION ... 49
REFERENCES ... 56
APPENDIX A: DC CHARACTERISTICS PER CLIENT ORGANIZATION ... 63
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDES ... 65
Appendix B.1 Interview Guide for Designers/Facilitators ... 65
Appendix B.2 Interview-Guide for Participants ... 67
5
1 INTRODUCTION
Currently, especially a sense of community at the workplace is becoming increasingly
important, because for many people the workplace is becoming the primary source of community. Community is the place where people are able to be themselves and connect to others (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). Individuals are spending more and more time at work and work is becoming a crucial area in providing meaning, stability and a sense of community and identity in their lives (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). This importance of the sense of community at work strengthens the societal awareness regarding the obligation of business leaders to be responsible in maintaining organizations as social systems (Novicevic, Davis, Dorn, Buckley & Brown, 2005). It is suggested that one way to increase this responsibility is by focusing on authentic leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans & Walumbwa, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Since several years, interest is growing in the concept of authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Gardner et al., 2005). This is
recognized both for practitioners and in academic literature. Authentic leadership implies that people are aware and determined to remain true to themselves (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). In the organizational context, authentic behavior implies that leaders act in line with the organization’s mission, norms and values (May, Chan, Hodges & Avolio, 2003). As becomes clear from the word “authentic leadership”, this concept of exists of two aspects, namely authenticity and leadership. To begin with, authenticity is described as being true to one’s own values and motives, and being open towards others (Walumbwa, Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck & Avolio, 2010). This means that authenticity is achieved when individuals are driven by internal values as opposed to external threats, incentives, or social expectations (Ryan and Deci, 2003). In addition, authenticity requires an understanding of others and an open relationship with others (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wensing & Peterson, 2008). The second aspect, ‘Leadership’ is in academic literature often
6
value and safety of openly sharing information (Walumbwa et al., 2010). However, it is assumed that, even with training, not all leaders will be able to create an environment in which their followers are able to act and feel authentic (Cooper, Scandura, Schriesheim, 2005). Therefore, in this research it is pre-supposed that it is important to stimulate authenticity on every organizational level. Also Luthans and Avolio (2003) state that authentic leadership is supposedly exhibited at all levels of the organization. Thus, authentic leadership can be studied at all organizational levels (Cooper, Scandura & Schriesheim, 2005). This means that the outcomes of this research can be applied to leaders in an organization as well as to employees without a formal leadership role. In order to prevent confusion regarding the applicability of authentic leadership to exclusively leaders, this thesis uses the word “authenticity” instead of authentic leadership.
The focus of this research is on individuals within an organizational context. It will focus on the part of the human being that seeks fulfillment through self-expression at work. For this fulfillment individuals must be able to immerse themselves into work, for cognitive, emotional and physical dimensions (Taylor, 1991). Interesting is the question why this concept of
authenticity is becoming increasingly important. Apparently people are not feeling authentic at work. It seems that especially at work, people feel the need to adjust to their environment. This might be strengthened due to the circumstances at work where people are placed in specific (prescribed) roles. This may cause people to feel pushed to live up to the expectations of their environment in order to receive positive evaluations and to be respected. Non-authentic behavior emerges as people suppress natural routines for dominant and more acceptable workplace ones (April, April & Wabbels, 2006). This effect seems to be strengthened by the changing
characteristics of the workplace from a past where job security was most important towards the present where the focus is on employability and less focus on loyalty and trust (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996). Because it gets more and more attention, it seems that people still feel the need to be able to feel authentic at work.
7
well-being and satisfaction on performance. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) found that employee satisfaction and engagement improved business outcomes including profitability, turnover, safety, customer satisfaction. In addition, in the research of Cameron et al. (2003) it seemed that managers who created environments in which employees had the opportunity to be themselves and use their talents had more productive work units, higher customer loyalty and lower employee turnover. An example of the impact of authenticity in organizations was shown at the European Bank, where a culture was created in which authenticity was highly valued. This resulted in a 20 percent increase in profits and a substantial customer growth (Roberts et al., 2005).
As the previous insights show, it seems that for both academics and practitioners authenticity is an important concept. For this reason, it is relevant to know how organizations can stimulate authenticity. Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang (2005) indicate two ways in which authenticity in an organization can be stimulated. First, they suggest that an organization should select or promote only those individuals who possess characteristics of a high level of authenticity. Another method is to perform developmental initiatives that can be used to foster authenticity (Illies et al., 2005). Luthans and Avolio (2003) suggest that additional research should be performed regarding the latter suggestion, which is specific ways to proactively develop authenticity. To increase the level of authenticity of individuals who already are employed in an organization, interventions can be applied to stimulate the current employees to act more authentic. For this reason, this thesis will focus on ways in which authenticity can be actively stimulated. This research will explore which factors are essential for simulating authenticity in organizations by using a case study. First some insights in the research process is given, in order to understand how authenticity is being studied in this thesis.
1.1 Research Process
8
grasp the essence of what this effect was specifically. Based on several interviews with the designers of the DC, the design principles of the DC were distinguished. These are the
independent variables in this thesis. These design principles were further explored and explained by literature in order to discover which theory was underlying to these principles.
Next, the question remained how the design principles which were applied in the DC contributed to the dependent variable, which was at that moment the broad concept of “personal development”. In order to measure the effect of the independent variables (design principles) on the dependent variable (personal development), first it was necessary to gain more insight in what personal development entails. For gaining insights in a more precise outcome, a grounded theory approach was applied. This implies that the researcher is not focused on testing hypotheses taken from existing theoretical frameworks, but rather develops a new ‘theory’ grounded in empirical data collected in the field (Dunne, 2011). Literature regarding authenticity was used in this research; however information was collected in a later stadium of the research to support the findings from the empirical research. The reasoning behind this is that there was a desire to allow categories to emerge naturally from the empirical data during analysis, uninhibited by existing theoretical frameworks and associated hypotheses (Glaser, 1992). This means that before the dependent variable was defined, first data was collected by doing 23 interviews and afterwards analyses were performed by coding sentences and grouping these into concepts. Based on these defined concepts, literature was explored to define the dependent variable/ the outcome of the DC. Based on this first analysis, it seemed that the results of the interviews showed many similarities to theories of authenticity. For this reason, the focus of this thesis was set on authenticity. Next, an extensive literature review was performed (as is provided in the theoretical section), and
9
1.2 The Case Study
This paragraph will provide additional information regarding the company who built the DC, the process of DC’s and the design principles on which the DC was built. Finally, the paragraph is finished with a brief description of the method in practice.
1.2.1 Kessels & Smit, the learning company
Kessels & Smit, the learning company (K&S), is a network-company existing of professionals with a passion for learning. It was founded in 1977 by Joseph Kessels and Cora Smit, and has grown to an international organization with over 50 professionals. Members of the network share beliefs about learning and development, like: building on personal strengths is more powerful than focusing on gaps; learning is a social process; and learning is more effective when it is connected to the work. Their aim is to facilitate growth and unleash potential and energy in individuals and groups (www.kessels-smit.com). The DC is one of many interventions through which K&S intends to develop individuals and organizations. K&S has built a sub-organization that only focuses on DC’s: `Kessels & Smit, Development Centers`. In this organization, the focus is on the design, realization and organization of DC’s (www.development-centers.nl). Moreover, an
important task of this sub organization is constantly developing and innovate the DC intervention.
1.2.2 Process of the DC
The goal of a DC is to increase personal development in order to organize an optimal career perspective from two points of view: the organization and the individual (van Noort, Pillen, & Nichting, 2008). It is assumed that by focusing on the development of individuals, the
organization will also benefit. Even though each client organization has a different purpose for the DC, the design elements are always included. The main event of a DC usually takes place in one day. However, this DC-day is never an isolated intervention. A process of preparation takes place before the event takes place. In order to decide which content is essential for an organization, critical incidents are collected and analyzed in collaboration with future participants of the DC.
10
feedback, questions and suggestions, both during and after the activities. During the day the pairs participate in three studios. In two studios the participants experiment with competences and the third studio focuses on personal reflection. All studios use work-related cases of the participants. Moreover, in each studio an internal facilitator from the client organization is present in the role of observer, which is prepared and professionalized by K&S professionals.
At the end of the DC-day, an extensive discussion takes place between all the facilitators and the observers (internal facilitator), called the panel discussion. Individual strengths, themes for development and suggestions for developments for each participant are discussed. In some organizations the panel discussion is completely transparent, through performing it in presence of the participants. In other organizations, the panel discussion is performed without the presence of participants and the results are discussed with the participants in an individual meeting several weeks after the DC-day.
1.2.3 Design of the DC
The DC are built on several key factors from Kessels & Smit. Even though more literature exists regarding interventions, called Development Centers, this intervention was designed by K&S itself. Therefore it is considered as a unique intervention, even though it might show
similarities with other interventions. The design principles however can be used for all kinds over interventions, therefore this thesis will focus on the design principles. In this way, outcomes of this research become broadly applicable, because it provides insights in relations between general design factors and its effect on authenticity. In the theoretical section, the general applicability of the design principles will be explored and based on the insights from theory, design factors will be formulated which will be used as independent variables of this research. Based on these variables, participants were questioned regarding their view on the DC and its outcomes. In addition, in paragraph 2.3 for each of the variables the relation to authenticity will be explored. As was described before, these principles were found by doing several interviews with designers of the DC.
The following design principles are included in the DC design:
Intersubjective feedback: the process of reviewing a participant is not an objective process. It is always subjective. Intersubjectivity brings several subjective views together to create a
11
Job relatedness: the exercises, cases and role plays are related to the job. Performing in the DC should feel close to real work.
Openness: the professionals in the DC are very open about their intentions towards the participants before, during and after the DC. For example, regarding the intention which is to enable the participant to experiment with new behavior. Moreover, they are open on which criteria the focus will be. Additionally, in the DC is tried to create a safe learning environment by stating that all information is confidential and that the interventions will not have consequences for their job assessment. (Van Noort & Smit, 1996).
Multi-perspective approach: insights are given in both behavior and in underlying levels of thinking and beliefs which cause certain (lack of) behavior.
Social interaction: before, during and after the DC participants have the opportunity to learn from and with each other.
Learning in the moment: using every situation as an opportunity for learning. This also means not just being told what to do, but actually being invited to act and think different.
In figure 1 an overview of the final analysis which will be performed in this research is provided. The theoretical section will explore these relations in literature, and the results section will present the outcomes of the analysis from the case study.
Authenticity
Multi-perspective approach OpennessSocial interaction Learning in the
12
1.2.4 Research questions
By doing this research a contribution is given to theory building for stimulating authenticity, and at the same time it enables all kinds of organizations to build interventions which stimulate authenticity. Based on the purpose of this research, the following main question is formulated:
How to stimulate authenticity within organizations?
In order to find out which factors are essential in stimulating authenticity, a case study is performed. The explorative character which belongs to the grounded theory approach implies that it is not an aim to present robust answers, i.e. to test the concept of authenticity, but rather to describe and explore factors that seem related to the stimulation of authenticity. Cooper et al. (2005) underline the importance of qualitative research in the field of authentic leadership, because it may facilitate the identification of all relevant dimensions and variables.
In the following chapters, it will be first explored in literature what is meant with the concept of authenticity. Next, the design principles which are used in the DC from Kessels and Smit will be analyzed and extended (if necessary) by describing them with concepts from literature.
13
2 THEORY
In the introduction the relevance of stimulating authenticity in organizations is briefly described. In this chapter, a theoretical overview is given regarding the concept of authenticity in organizations. First a general description of authenticity is provided, followed by an exploration of several components of authenticity. Furthermore, in the third paragraph of this chapter is discussed which factors are underlying tot the design principles of the DC in order to formulate questions regarding which variables (design factors) stimulate authenticity, which were used for the empirical research. This chapter will end with a conceptual model which shows the expected relations between the design factors and authenticity.
2.1 Introduction to Authenticity
In order to understand the concept of authenticity, first an introduction into the concept of authenticity is required. This paragraph will provide an overview of how authenticity is presented in literature and how it will be applied in this research.
2.1.1 Authenticity defined
May et al. (2003) state that essential aspects of authenticity are to know oneself and to be one self. To be oneself means that one should enact on personal values and motives (Ryan & Deci, 2003). According to Ryan and Deci (2003) authenticity is achieved when individuals are driven by internal values as opposed to external threats, incentives, or social expectations. In an
organizational context, authenticity does not imply that people perform solely those things that they like. Instead, authenticity is about fulfilling the required role or tasks in such a way that this is in congruence with personal values and drives (Deci & Ryan, 1991). The professional roles
remain secondary to what the individual is as a human being (Halpin and Croft, 1963). On the other hand, Halpin and Croft (1963) describe inauthenticity as using a role as a protective cloak to hide lack of personal identity.
Moreover, authenticity does not solely imply being true to oneself. It requires also an
14
In addition, a person with a high level of authenticity should be able to accept and disclose the information that is needed for high quality decision making. This is not limited by ego-driven motives, but decisions are based on the most relevant information (Walumbwa et al., 2010). As the previous shows, authenticity is defined as “being true to one’s own values and motives, and being open towards others (Walumbwa et al., 2010).
2.2 Authenticity Components
Much research has been done regarding splitting up the concept of authenticity in several components (among others by Walumbwa et al. 208; Kernis and Goldman, 2004; Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2005, Matuzis & Slawinski, 2008; Kernis, 2003). Many authors use similar components to describe authenticity. The components htat are used by several authes are shown in an overview in table 1. There are four components which are almost stated in every theory about authenticity. Walumbwa et al. (2008) recently found support for the validity of the authentic leadership construct based on those four components of self awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and authentic behavior.
TABLE 1
15
As is shown in table 1, each author describes self- awareness as one of the components Secondly, all include a relational focus. Even though some call this a relational orientation and others relational transparency, both refer to the main characteristic of transparency, which is openness (Gray, 1992). For this reason, this component will be called relational transparency. The third component is described as unbiased or balanced processing. The difference between unbiased and balanced is described by Avolio and Gardner (2005) as follows: unbiased processing assumes that information is processed with objectivity. On the other hand, balanced also suggests processing information on a conscious and rational manner, however it does not assume
objectivity. It is chosen to use the word balanced processing, because it is assumed that it is impossible for people to be completely objective towards information they receive. Finally, each research includes a component which refers to a behavioral aspect. Internalized moral perspective is described as a combination of an internalized regulation processes, which implies making decisions based on internal norms and values it seems similar to the descriptions of authentic behavior/acting because it both involves exhibiting behavior that is consistent with one’s internal values and standards. In order to highlight the fact that this factor is about behavior based on internal values, there is chosen to use the word “authentic behavior”.
Cooper et al. (2005) argue that the components of authenticity contain elements from diverse domains—traits, states, behaviors, contexts, and attributions. Indeed, it seems that each component covers a different perspective on authenticity as is shown in table 2: relational transparency is the interpersonal perspective, while self-awareness describes an intrapersonal consciousness process. Moreover, balanced processing describes a cognitive process and authentic behavior applies to the behavioral aspect.
TABLE 2
Components of authenticity related to different levels
Component of authenticity Level
Self-awareness Intrapersonal
Balanced processing Cognitive
Authentic behavior Behavioral
16
Matuzis and Slawinski (2008) describe these four components as capabilities that can be developed. It is assumed that even though they are highly related to each other, they can all
operate independently (Kernis & Goldman, 2005). This paragraph provides an explanation of each component and the following paragraph elaborates on the question how these components can be stimulated by the design factors.
2.2.1 Self-awareness
Kernis and Goldman (2004) describe awareness as a first requirement of authenticity. Self-awareness is defined as ‘demonstrating an understanding of how one derives and makes meaning of the world and how that impacts the way one views himself or herself over time’ (Walumbwa et al., 2008). This definition comprises several dimensions which need further explanation. First of all, self awareness includes understanding how one makes meaning of the world. This implies not only awareness of the self, but also awareness of the surrounding context is required, i.e.
themselves, other people and the world (Judge, Locke, Durham & Kluger, 1998). According to Kernis (2003), individuals are free to choose their own reality, but they must recognize that it is not the only reality. This view on the world impacts how they view themselves.
Moreover, self-awareness includes knowledge of one’s inherent contradictory self-aspects and the role of these contradictions in influencing one’s thoughts, feelings, actions and behaviors (Ilies et al., 2005; Kernis, 2003). Contradictory self aspects are for example: feminine/masculine
characteristics or extroverted/introverted behaviors, or emotional/stoic. Although one of these aspects generally predominates over the other, individuals always possess both aspects to some degree (Kernis & Goldman, 2004). Being aware of those dualities helps to integrate them into a cohesive self-structure (Kernis & Goldman, 2004). A cohesive self-structure is characterized by the harmonious interplay of ambitions, ideals, and talents with the opportunities of everyday reality (Leider, 1996). Moreover, Diddams and Chang (2012) suggest that authenticity means that people are more aware of their own ambiguities, inconsistencies and limits to self-knowledge. The final two words of the definition of self-awareness ‘over time’ imply that it is an ongoing process. Self-awareness is not an end in itself, but a process whereby one comes to reflect on one’s unique values, identity, emotions, goals, knowledge, talents and/or capabilities, often triggered by
17
2.2.2 Balanced processing
Balanced processing is described as consciously and rationally making an analysis of all relevant information before making a decision (Gardner et al., 2005). The essence of this
component is that information is processed in a balanced manner: people are not making decisions based on ego-driven motives, but they consider multiple perspectives as they assess information (Gardner et al., 2005). This also means that views from others that challenge the persons’ existing position are solicited (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010). In addition, it involves not denying, distorting, or exaggerating private knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based evaluative information (Kernis & Goldman, 2004; Kernis, 2003). Not only the available
information must be used, but balanced processing also requires an active state of seeking input (Diddams & Chang, 2012). It can be assumed that actively seeking input requires specific skills such as actively questioning, active listening and summarizing.
Moreover, asking input might be in the form of feedback (Avolio et al., 2008). For example, people who actively seek out feedback are more likely to have an accurate sense of themselves, their work and their relationships to superiors, followers, and peers (Diddams & Chang, 2012). However, this requires that people are able to accept both negative and positive aspect of themselves (Gardner et al., 2005). Those people who can accept different aspects of the self are associated with high self-esteem (Kernis, 2003). Therefore, a high self-esteem can be associated with balanced processing.
2.2.3 Authentic behavior
18
involves establishing congruence between one’s internal standards and anticipated outcomes. It entails that people say what they mean and mean what they say, thereby managing tensions and confronting conflicts between their personal values and organizational responsibilities (Novicevic et al., 2006; Matuzis and Slawinski, 2008). According to Kernis and Goldman (2004) this means that people can conform to environmental contingencies, without being in conflict with their true selves. Schlenker (1985) describes conformation to environment as situational identity, which implies that an identity depends on a specific situations and contexts (Schlenker, 1985). Authentic behavior is the sensitivity to the fit (or lack thereof) between one’s true self and the requirements of the environment, and a heightened awareness of the potential implications of one’s behavioral choices (Kernis & Goldman, 2004). This implies that someone should not only be aware of their own most important values (their “true self”), but also being aware of whether the effect of their behavior is in congruence with their values.
2.2.4 Relational transparency
In addition to being self-aware, balanced and acting in congruence with internal values, authenticity means also being transparent in revealing these expressions of the true self to others (Hughes, 2005). Even though for authenticity the primary source is the individual, another component of authenticity is the aspect of how people act in relation to others. Therefore a relational orientation to authenticity is essential. Transparency in relationships is described as a characteristic of authenticity. Relational transparency implies that people strive for openness and truthfulness in close relationships (Kernis & Goldman, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2010). The first aspect of this definition, ‘openness’ implies that people are open towards emotions, values and behavior of others. In a transparent relationship, opportunities are created in which both individuals feel enabled to share their ideas, challenges and opinions.
The second aspect ‘truthfulness’ implies an active process of self-disclosure, in which people show themselves to intimates, both their good and bad aspects. This also includes emotions, even if some emotions are perceived as inappropriate at work (Kernis, 2003). As each person is true to his/her emotions and is open to values and emotions of others, personal connections are
19
Goldman, 2004). The established transparent relationships are characterized by high levels of trust (Ilies et al., 2005) and cooperative behavior (Jones and George, 1998).
How this transparency in relationships and the other three components can be stimulated in organizations by an intervention will be explored in the following paragraph.
2.3 Factors which Stimulate Authenticity
As was introduced in the introduction, the development initiative “the Development Centers (DC)” is used as a case study to explore which factors stimulate authenticity.
The design principles of the DC were the starting point of this research for exploring literature in order to gain understanding of each of these variables from a theoretical perspective. The design principles from the DC intervention are: intersubjective feedback; job relatedness; openness; multi perspective approach; social interaction; learning in the moment.
Before the results that were found in practice (i.e. effects of each of the design factors) will be presented, first an overview is given of literature that describes each of these design factors. For some, the name of the variable was changed, because literature defines similar principles with different words. This applies to openness, which becomes psychological safety and learning in the moment which becomes active learning. In addition, the multi-perspective approach is similar to what literature calls a trigger event. For each factor is explained how this factor might contribute to the authenticity components. On the end of each paragraph is a sub question is formulated, which will contribute to answering the main question.
2.3.1 Intersubjective feedback
To challenge people in their development towards authenticity, it is necessary to reflect on situations or experiences in an intervention (van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). Not all individuals will actively seek information regarding themselves and the situation they are in. Therefore, an intervention should make sure that participants receive information regarding themselves and the situation in the form of feedback.
Feedback is defined as receiving information from others regarding behavior and
20
implies that several perspectives are used to give the most relevant insights (de Caluwe & Vermaak, 2006). This is based on the supposition that each person perceives situations from his/her own context of a personal perception of the world (Annet, 2002). Consequently, different people will perceive situations and behavior differently. With intersubjectivity not one shared meaning of the world is created, but each subjective evaluation is valued on its own. These different perceptions can be used for a better understanding of the working relations, personal performance and underlying motives (van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). This enables a person to gain insight into how they are viewed by others and highlights potential disconnections between self-perceptions and the perception of others (Ilies et al., 2005). The insights based on the perceptions of others regarding themselves and situations stimulate a higher sense of self-awareness (Ilies et al., 2005).
Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy and Quinn (2005) suggest that people need to be able to identify with the feedback-giver in order to accept feedback. However, at the same time Roberts, et al. (2005) highlight the risk of too close connections, which may inhibit revision of the self. Changes in self-identity often require new connections, because old connections (particularly strong connections) may bind people to old ways of viewing themselves (Ibarra, 2003). Therefore, receiving feedback from an external (unrelated) professional facilitator can be useful to create new insights regarding the self. In addition, a quantitative study performed by Spreitzer, Stephens and Sweetman (2009), found support for the hypothesis that feedback from the combination of professional and personal sources is associated with more positive emotional, agentic and
relational wealth than feedback from only professional sources. For this reason, it is important that an intervention includes feedback, preferably from both close connections and professional
facilitators. Overall, it seems that providing each other with feedback is important for stimulating authenticity, because this creates insights in situations, relationships, others and the self, which might affect self-awareness and relational transparency. To measure the effect of intersubjective feedback on authenticity will be discovered in practice, by using the following research question:
Q1: How does intersubjective feedback stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.2 Job-relatedness
21
included in the intervention. In order to create a realistic atmosphere, it is required that the
participants value the intervention as relevant for their job (Matheson, 2001). This can be done by using job related exercises. A realistic exercise increases the credibility for the participants, which helps them to be more connected and motivated to perform the exercises (Harley, 1995). In addition, Goodge (1994) states that in case of a lack of job relatedness, the exercise will not be seen as credible to participants and consequently a risk arises of findings that will be ignored, because people cannot relate to it. Moreover, by including a job related case, feedback can be more accurate, which increases the acceptance of the feedback by the participant and consequently for application in their behavior (Goodge, 1994). Facione, Facione and Giancarlo (1996) state that the lessons learned become more memorable and concrete. Next, in a situation where the lessons need to be applied, they can be easily called to mind. Due to this, it stimulates consciously applying the findings from an intervention. This consciously acting would indicate authentic behavior.
Cooper, et al. (2005) suggest that the organizational context should be included in an intervention. The definition of self-awareness also includes being aware of the context and the way in which this context is perceived. For this reason, job relatedness in an intervention might contribute to an increased level of self-awareness, because it gives insight in the self in a specific (organizational) context. Moreover, when the exercises and the feedback are related to the job, participants have a better understanding of what was required of them to contribute to the organization (Matheson, 2001).
As the previous shows, job relatedness is stressed as an important factor. Exercises should be job related and feedback should be based on specific behavior. It seems that this could stimulate authentic behavior because people can apply the findings more easily to realistic settings. What the actual impact on authenticity is, will be analyzed in the case study, which will lead to an answer on the following sub-question:
Q2: How does job relatedness stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.3 Psychological safety
22
to literature, openness is important because it promotes a safe environment which is characterized by trust, transparency and sharing (van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). The effect on participant is that they can experience psychological safety (Edmondson, 2008; May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). Psychological safety means that individuals feel ‘safe’ and feel that they will not suffer for expressing their true selves (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). It enables people to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career’ (Kahn, 1990). The name of this concept is used instead of openness because it comprises the essence of what is important for an intervention, which is more extensive than openness. Psychological safety is important for stimulating authenticity, because it stimulates people to ask for information, help and feedback (Edmondson, 2008). It helps people to gain insights in the self, because with
psychological safety people believe that others will not resent or penalize them for asking for help, information or feedback (Edmondson, 2008).
Moreover, in order to reflect and gain insights on the self, a requirement is that people are able to show their true self in an intervention. Psychological safety stimulates this, because people feel free to express their true selves (Kahn, 1990). Based on these insights, it can be assumed that psychological safety will contribute to the authenticity component of balanced processing
(actively seeking feedback and information and accepting input of others) and relational transparency (accepting true selves of others and dare to express the self), because it enables
people to open up towards feedback and enables people to show themselves during an intervention. Summarizing, psychological safety is a requirement for an intervention in which people can be open about themselves. It shows a relation to the authenticity components: balanced processing and relational transparency. Whether these relations can also be found in practice will be researched by answering the following question:
Q3: How does psychological safety stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.4 Reflecting on trigger events
23
which is visible to others. Especially in a conflict between behavior and/or internal values a stimulus is given to reflection and consequently stimulates development in the process of
authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2004; Cooper et al., 2005). It is the question how these internal conflicts can be used in an intervention. In literature it is suggested that this can be done by reflecting on a moment which gives insights in conflicts between behavior and/or internal values. Especially moments which have had a significant impact on the world view and behavioral style of a person are essential (Cooper, et al., 2005). Using these moments/events for reflection is suggested in many researches regarding authenticity. Even though different terms are used for this concept, all researches suggest that specific moments are essential in the development of
authenticity. The terms used are ‘trigger events’ (Cooper, et al., 2005), ‘moments that matter’ (Avolio and Luthans, 2006) or the ‘aha-experience’ or jolt (Roberts et al., 2005). In this thesis the word trigger even will be used, because it implies that an event triggers someone to act or think differently. A trigger event may be either a dramatic event in one’s life or a more routine event (Cooper et al., 2005). Moreover, the impact of such an event can occur immediately, but insights can also occur retrospectively. It is important to realize that trigger events (of any frequency or magnitude) may not always lead to a change. It is the interaction of the trigger event and personal insight that produces behavioral change. Therefore, the essence of an intervention is to stimulate the process of personal insights (i.e. the authenticity component self-awareness), by exploring, recognizing and making explicit which beliefs underlie the behavior and thoughts that were experienced during the trigger event (Ilies et al., 2005). For gaining insights, it is argued that often a moment to pause and reflect on experiences is required (Louis, 1980; Shamir and Eilam, 2005). The approach used for reflection on multiple levels in the DC is similar to the approach as
24
Q4: How does reflecting on trigger events stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.5 Social interaction
As already becomes clear through the components of authenticity, authenticity does not only comprise knowing the self and being true to the self, but it also includes a social aspect. This is shown especially by the relational transparency component, but also balanced processing involves a social aspect: accepting input of others.
Social interaction comprises the reinforcement of behavior by supporting each other (van den Ouden, 1992). Roberts et al. (2005) suggest that relationships provide support for individuals to feel comfortable to embrace the changes which accompany the development of authenticity. Supportive relationships provide security and safety for individuals, which enable them to create and sustain a clearer sense of their own capabilities (Kahn, 2001). In addition, social support can imply helping each other in case of confrontational situations, by providing the context to make sense of a situation (Roberts et al., 2005). For example, a supportive relationship can provide social and emotional support to help someone to understand and integrate his or her identities and act accordingly (authentic behavior). This support can be expressed in the form of counseling, acceptance, confirmation, and/or friendship (Kram, 1985).
In short, the social interaction gives people the opportunity to provide and receive support in the process of authenticity. Moreover, social interaction is helpful and can be determining for sense making (self-awareness) and it can stimulate people to transform insights into actions (authentic behavior). For exploring whether this effect actually occurs in practice the following question is formulated:
Q5: How does social interaction stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.6 Active learning
25
which seems to be similar to the concept of active learning in literature. Both imply that
participants are active during an intervention and are reflecting on what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Locke (2000) states that experiences provide a rich resource for stimulating
authenticity, because it creates understanding and insights in unforgettable ways. By actually performing during an intervention, participants see themselves not only as passive observers of their lives but rather as individuals who can take influence on their lives (George, Sims, McLean & Mayer, 2007). Research shows that people will learn the most when they receive feedback immediately after behaving and when they have the opportunity to correct their behavior
(Thornton, 1992; London, 2003). By active learning, the insights may become more vivid, because it is associated with specific action tendencies that supplement their values, beliefs, and wishes (Roberts et al., 2005). As these outcomes show, active learning contributes also to insights in the self (self-awareness). Moreover, Goodge (1994) found that when people can relate their insights to specific behavior, it is more likely that action occurs afterwards (Goodge 1994). Similarly, Smart and Csapo (2007) argue that findings can be applied more easily to work and life situation. When insights are applied in their behavior, it can stimulate authentic behavior.
Moreover, Scandura and Graen (1984) suggested that active learning with a focus on social exchanges can result in higher quality relationships between people. Similarly, Ilies et al. (2005) suggest that social exchange training may contribute to relational transparency. This implies that by performing during an intervention, the participants can immediately experience the benefits from their transparent behavior in relation to others. In addition, when active learning is focused on the skills required for balanced processing, it might also contribute to the development of this authenticity component. For example, Ilies et al. (2005) suggest that for stimulating balanced processing an assessment center could be used. In an assessment centre participants are placed in situations where balanced processing is required. Through the use of role plays or group
26
FIGURE 2
Conceptual model based on theory
stimulated. How this is experienced by participants in practice will be explored by answering the following sub-question:
Q6: How does active learning stimulate authenticity in organizations?
2.3.7 Conceptual model
The previous paragraphs have explained the definition of each factor and gave insight in how it is assumed to stimulate authenticity. In figure 2 an overview is given of the relations between the factors in the intervention and the components of authenticity as was found in literature. In the case study this will be researched as well in order to find out whether these connections were also found by participants of an intervention. It is important to be aware of the fact that this model was not used as the basic for the interviews, but that the field study was performed based on a
grounded theory approach. This means that first data was collected, and based on the outcomes a theory was built. The previous chapter gives insights in what is already known in literature regarding the theory of how authenticity can be stimulated.
27
METHODS
This chapter provides insight in what methods were used in order to answer the research question. As is described in the introduction, this research is performed with a grounded theory approach. In this paragraph will be further explained on which way the data was collected, processed and analyzed.
3.1 The Case Study: Client Organizations where the DC was Performed The research was performed by conduct interviews at organizations where the DC had been performed. To decide which client organizations could be used as a case study, the following criteria were used: the DC has been performed maximum five years ago and it is designed and executed in close cooperation with the client. To choose which people from the organizations were interviewed was based on the availability and the readiness of the people to join in the research.
The first criterion was applied because in order to be able to assess the value of a DC it is necessary to measure the effects of the DC through time (Harrison, 2005). Behavioral change takes time to be noticed (Cherniss, Grim and Liautaud, 2010). Therefore organizations were approached which have gone through the DC process in the previous 5 years, varying from several years ago as well as organizations where the DC was performed more recently. Based on these criteria it was chosen to collect data in four organizations, namely Vedior (currently taken over by Tempoteam), a university of Applied Sciences (called in this thesis University X), CWZ and GTI (currently Cofely).
Each organization operates in a completely different business environment, respectively employment, education, health care and technique. This makes the results from this research more widely applicable. Moreover, all client organizations applied the DC for a different purpose, as is shown in table 3, where the management objectives for the application of the DC were provided.
TABLE 3
Management objective for the DC per client organization
GTI Integrating companies to exploit the power of all companies through the development of leadership skills
28
create motion, 4) value results. Two conditions: self-knowledge and self-management Vedior Prepare employees for their new role as location manager, which came to existence due
to a structural change. The goal includes dealing with subordinates and dealing with clients and creating a universal vision on management.
CWZ Equip senior nurses and team leaders for their role (The theme of this job is task-oriented or informal leadership. These roles include substantive professionalism, communication, taking responsibility and cooperation.
Consequently, due to these different management questions, the specific content of each DC differed per organization, however the design principles were applied in all organizations. In appendix A a complete overview of the differences in the content and design are provided.
3.2 Characteristics of the Research Group
Twenty-three in-depth interviews of 1.5 hour were performed with people from the client organizations who were involved in the DC: six at Vedior, six at University X; six at GTI and five at CWZ. The age was averagely around 45 years old, varying from 35 till 60. The distribution between men and women was quite equal: 56% were men and 44% were women. GTI is the only organization where all interviewees were from one gender, namely men. However, this is also the predominant gender in the organization GTI, so it represents the majority of the organization. The interviewees held different positions in their organizations, such as finance, human resources, team managers, department manager and in some cases also the operational staff.
From the client organizations two different types of actors from the DC were interviewed, which are the DParticipant CWZarticipants (16 persons) and the DC-internal facilitators (7 persons). As described in the introduction, participants are the people who go in pairs through the studios for improving their personal development on the job. They receive feedback during the day and afterwards. Next to participating in the DC, the participants can observe their colleague, so they are in the position to give feedback.
29
facilitators are prepared by K&S professionals. This starts with going through the DC studios. Therefore, in the interviews they can also speak from the viewpoint of participants. In addition, they give insights in the (recurrent) outcomes they have seen over the several DC’s they have observed. In the result section the most outcomes were based on the viewpoint of the participants, however, as outcomes are mentioned only by internal facilitators, it is explicitly highlighted.
In the preparation phase also interviews with K&S facilitators were performed, but these were only used for gaining an understanding of the DC process and defining the design principles. The outcomes of the interviews with K&S facilitators were not included in the results section as outcomes (see appendix B.1 for the questions that were used for the K&S facilitators).
3.3 The Research Method for Collecting Data
In the interviews it was important to be able to explore new insights. At the same time it was necessary to draw sound conclusions, so comparability and validity of the interviews were important considerations. This paragraph will describe which methods were used to increase the theoretical soundness of this research.
3.3.1 Focused interviews
30
wer related to each specific design principle. In this way it was guaranteed that the full range of the design principles of the intervention was included (see appendix B.2 for the questions that were used for the DC participants and internal facilitators).
In order to increase the reliability of the results, it was important to check whether the perception of the interviewee is understood and interpreted correctly by the researcher. To check this, a written report of the interpretations from the interview was sent to each interviewee and they were asked whether this interpretation was correct.
3.3.2 The use of self-perception
The interviewees were asked to describe the effects or changes they perceived on themselves caused by the DC. There is suggested that using self-perception for gaining insights in effects of interventions or trainings is appropriate because of several reasons (van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004): First of all, people experience the effects of their actions directly in a number of real world setting, for example by gaining information about things in the world around them and observing others. Moreover, if their performance increased, they have received others judgments of their performance and finally, people have unique acquaintance with their own inner states, feelings, and dispositions, as well as with their changes over time (Fox & Dinur, 1988). Especially for authenticity self-perception is very important, because people can only know for themselves whether their actions are in congruence with their true self (Turner, 1976).
The validity of self-perception is increased when anonymity is guaranteed (van der Heijden & Nijhof, 2004). In the interviews the interviewees were promised that the information from the interviews would be used anonymously. Moreover, interviewees were informed about the
intentions of the research and to whom the results would be provided. To ensure anonymity, codes were used instead of names.
3.4 Analyzing Data
31
3.4.1 Using matrices for analyzing the data
For analyzing the data, two rounds were performed. First, the statements of the respondents were analyzed and ordered based on their similarities. To analyze the outcomes of the ordering process of the data, a meeting was organized with K&S professionals to create appropriate categories. The group of professionals was composed of three research-experts and four professionals with expertise regarding the DC’s.
Based on these categories, literature was used to find a focus in which these categories could be analyzed. The concept of authentic leadership showed many similarities to the categories that were formulated and therefore was decided to use this concept for analyzing the data a second time.
For analyzing the data in the second analysis, an explanatory effects matrix was used. This matrix starts with displaying data on one or more outcomes, in which the focus is on the dependent variable (Miles & Huberman, 1994 p. 137). In this matrix outcomes of the DC were categorized into the components of authenticity. This matrix gave insight to what degree each of the effects occurred over the different organizations as is shown in table 4.
TABLE 4
Explanatory effects matrix
Client Organization
self-awareness Balanced processing Authentic behavior Relational transparency Vedior University X GTI CWZ
The next step was to discover which factors of the DC had contributed to which outcome (i.e. which component of authenticity). For doing that, a case dynamic matrix was used for
32
TABLE 5 Case dynamic matrix
In this matrix on the horizontal axis, quotes of participants were categorized according to the authenticity-components, in relation to the factors on the vertical axis. Based on the number of quotes was decided to what degree an effect seemed strong. This was measured by presenting the percentages of the number of participants who mentioned similar relations between factors and outcomes. This percentage does not imply that an effect occurred to that specific quantity. Moreover, it does not even imply that the effect did not occur when a participant has not mentioned it. However, a high percentage shows that many interviewees independently of each other state the same aspects as an important factor, outcome or relationship between those two. The results section describes the integrated analysis of all organizations (the second analysis), where the outcomes are related to the factors.
Organization Name Authenticity components
Factors Self-awareness Balanced processing Authentic behavior Relational transparency Intersubjective feedback Job relatedness Psychological safety
Reflection on trigger events Social interaction
33
4 RESULTS
To begin with, this chapter will show the results that are collected from the interviews with several people involved in the DC’s, such as internal facilitators and participants. These insights will contribute to the answers of the sub questions 1-6, which were formulated in the theoretical section. Before it can be analyzed which factors stimulate authenticity, first it needs to be shown that the intervention which is used for measuring which factors stimulate authenticity, the DC, shows a positive impact on the authenticity-components. Afterwards, it will be explored which of the design factors were considered as essential by the participants. Finally, this chapter will end with a conclusion based on the insights from the interviews.
4.1 Authenticity as an Outcome of the Development Center
To discover which factors were essential for stimulating authenticity, first it needs to be established whether the outcomes of the Development Center were associated with the
authenticity components. The authenticity components are: self-awareness, balanced processing, authentic behavior and relational transparency. An overview of the percentages regarding the amount of interviewees who mentioned the component in each of the organizations is given in appendix C. Moreover, this appendix shows for each component and each organization an illustrative statement from one of the interviews.
4.1.1 Self-awareness
From the interviews three levels of awareness came forward, which are: insights in the effect of behavior (52%), insights in strengths and weaknesses (self-aspects) (57%) and insights in motives (ambitions which underlie behavior) (74%). First of all, 52% of the interviewees stated that they gained insights in their behavior during the DC. With insights in behavior is meant that people created awareness regarding the effects of their behavior, as is shown in the following statement: “I became aware of myself; of my body language and facial expression during
listening…. I was confronted with my own reaction… and I could see immediately the effect”.
34
Moreover, 57 % of all interviewees stated that they gained insights in their strengths and weaknesses. This value of this level is described as follows: “It is always good to look at yourself,
gain insights in your pitfalls (even though these were quite clear). It is good to stand still to prevent that you fall [into your pitfall]”. Another participant stated: “the DC gives a reflection moment regarding what someone’s strength is”. Moreover, it seems that the added value of the
intervention is that the strengths and weaknesses are made concrete, as is shown in the following statement. “I know what my strengths and weaknesses are. Not only on an abstract level, but very
concrete behavior”.
The third level is described by 74 % of all interviewees, which is that they gained insights in underlying motives (beliefs and internal values). The awareness of motives consists of both insights in what one’s motives are, and insights in how motivates influences behavior of people. How this was experienced by participants is illustrated in the following statements: “[The
Development Center] is a new way of teaching: more personal and not only focused on content… I have learned why something is difficult for me… I became aware that my behavior was driven by my beliefs”. Someone else stated: “I have gained insights regarding myself, even though I was not aware that I had a question”.
Conclusively, the DC seems to have contributed to the authenticity component of awareness for all participants, however the level on which people were self-aware differed for each person and also seems to differ between the organizations. The impact on insights in motives was mentioned most frequently.
4.1.2 Balanced processing
In literature, it was stated that balanced processing was indicated by two aspects, namely actively collecting input of others and a high self-esteem. In the interviews regarding outcomes of the DC, balanced processing was also recognized in these two aspects. Participants from the DC learned skills which helped them to. Sixty-five percentage of the interviewees stated that they acquired skills such as questioning, summarizing, and active listening, as was shown in the following statements:”I received other methods that will allow me to reach people and I became
35
A second way in which balanced processing was mentioned, was in statements in which people describe that their self esteem was improved. 74% of all interviewees stated that they felt more confident about themselves as a result of the DC. Participants described this effect as
follows:”First was appointed what you do best. Besides, I got things I could work on. First getting
compliments makes me feel stronger. Next, I can grow”. Someone else said:”I started to rely more on myself, I know what my strengths and weaknesses are. Not only on an abstract level, but
regarding very concrete behavior”. Moreover, self-esteem was increased by sharing difficulties,
as is shown in the following statement: “Anyone is dealing with the same problems, so I started to
think that it will probably not be my fault. This gave a boost to myself”.
Summarizing, it seems that more than half of the interviewees mention that they acquired either communicational skills or self esteem, according to literature this indicates the ability to process information in a balanced matter.
4.1.3 Authentic behavior
Literature states that authentic behavior involves establishing congruence between one’s internal standards and anticipated outcomes. In order to be create this congruence, it is required that one is aware of internal motives and possible outcomes of behavior. The interview results showed a strong relation between authentic behavior and awareness. This seems a strong
connection, because when authentic behavior was mentioned, it was always related to awareness. The percentages of how many interviewees mentioned authentic behavior is similar to the
percentages of people who stated self-awareness, so they will not be presented again. This can be explained by the style of interviewing, because with every effect the interviewees stated, the interviewer continued to ask what caused this effect on their actions and in their answer they always referred to “awareness”. One of the internal facilitators highlights this process of the connection between awareness and acting: “First there is a realization of the effect of the behavior
(emotion or attitude); next, people realize that emotion is driving behavior and understand that this can be influenced by themselves. Next they are becoming curious about doing things differently”. As this statement shows, it especially triggers people to think about what they do,
36
awareness. It does not mean they are able to apply new behavior immediately”. Moreover, the
statements of the participants suggest that the awareness during DC really impacted their behavior afterwards: “The impact of thinking about it, is that you become aware of…. Thoughts which I had
for a longer time, are now turned into actions”. As self-awareness was divided in three levels,
these three levels can also be recognized for authentic behavior.
First of all, the level of behavior was shown in the following statement: “Because I felt the
impact of my attitude during the DC, I focus later more on my attitude in real conversations”. It
seems important that people recognize the effects of their behavior, and consequently they can regulate their behavior in order to achieve the desired effects. The consciousness about their behavior and the consequent effects helps them to adjust their behavior when necessary in order to act authentic: “[the DC] helped me to be very conscious of insights regarding [the effect of
behavior]. Then I could translate more easily it into practice”.
On the second level, participants gained awareness on strengths and weaknesses. Due to these insights participants created after the DC opportunities which enabled them to act on their
strengths, for example by organizing their own tasks or choose their own environment. The following statement illustrates this: “I gained an understanding of what I'm really good at. I
utilize a number of strengths now more than before. Because I realized that I was good at it, I attract more of those tasks”. In addition, the participants who gained insights into their motives
set their own goals. They stated they were better able to show more of themselves and trust on their own values and beliefs: “Now I stay close to myself, instead of adjusting”. This is similar to the outcomes as is shown in the following statement: “In the DC I allowed myself to be myself ….
[from that moment I decided to] stay close to myself and see whether the environment fits with that”.
As this paragraph showed, awareness can occur on several levels, which leads to authentic behavior of participants on each of those levels. This behavioral aspect seems to occur especially after the DC.
4.1.4 Relational transparency
37
relationships that were built within the pairs during the intervention, because the openness in these relationships indicate an increase in relational transparency. Interviewees stated that they really got to know their buddies/colleagues, because they have enclosed their personal values and emotions during the DC: “You get to know the other, and he gets to know you on different
aspects”. Another participant said: “You can skip a few steps in the process of getting to know each other, namely the sensing of what the perception is of somebody is no longer necessary, because you know that already”. Based on the interviews it could be concluded that working in
pairs caused a strong personal connection for 70% of the interviewees. This indicates a high level of relational transparency.
4.1.5 Conclusion: does the DC stimulate authenticity?
Overall, it can be concluded that it seems that authenticity is actually an outcome of the DC. In order to answer the main question regarding how authenticity can be stimulated, the question remains which of the design principles of the DC have contributed to its outcome.
As is shown in the previous paragraphs, the interviews showed that awareness occurred on several levels. More than half of the interviewees stated that insights were gained in behavior and strengths and weaknesses, while over 70% stated that insights in motives and values were gained. It seems that it depends on the organization on what level participants especially gained insights. Furthermore, authentic behavior seemed to be strongly related to the increased self-awareness, because this led to changes or more conscious choices in behavior. It seemed difficult to recognize when people actually were acting authentic. However, as authentic behavior is described as
making conscious choices about behaving, the interplay between self-awareness and authentic behavior makes sense.
