website
orangepink
Week4LectureSlides.pptxTopic 4: Developing Self-Leadership
1
Mental Models (Mindsets or Maps)
Beliefs, ideas and values that we unconsciously form from our experiences and which guide our thoughts and actions.
These representations of reality explain cause and effect to us, and lead us to expect certain results, give meaning to events, and predispose us to behave in certain ways.
Mental models provide internal stability in a world of change, they also blind us to facts and ideas that challenge or defy our deeply held beliefs.
They are, by their very nature, fuzzy and incomplete. And everyone has different models of the same concept or subject, no matter how common or simple.
Espoused Theory vs. Theory-in-use (Argyris & Schon, 1974)
I profess a view that people are basically trustworthy (espoused theory)
vs.
In my daily life I never lend friends money, and jealously guard all my possession (theory-in-use)
My theory-in-use - my deeper mental model – differs from my espoused theory
Single vs. Double Loop Learning
Another way of thinking about all of this is by using single versus double loop learning:
Single loop – we identify a problem, we develop strategies to fix the problem, we improve the system as it is (e.g. CSR, TBL etc) but we don’t change the system to be better. We don’t unpack, question, challenge and change our underlying assumptions, beliefs etc (mental models). Such learning is doomed to repeat similar mistakes over and over again (it is a linear approach to learning)
Double loop learning – we identify a problem, we address our underlying assumptions, beliefs and values about the problem, we seek to change our mental models so that any strategies we come up with will actually solve the problem by changing the system for the better (it is a systemic approach to learning)
4
Defensive Routines
Entrenched habits used to protect ourselves from embarrassment and threat
Widespread, diverse and unnoticed/unseen! Defensive routines become so ingrained in our social behavior that they become an accepted “way for how things work around here.”
Can you think of some examples? 8 common defense mechanisms
How do we deal with DRs? Bring them into the light! To retain their power, they must remain undiscussable.
1. A protective shell around our deepest assumptions, defending us against pain, but also keeping us from learning about the causes of our pain.
Not sourced in a desire to preserve social relations, but in a fear of exposing the thinking that lies behind our views
2. The more effective defensive routines are, the more effectively they cover up underlying problems, the less effectively these problems are faced, and the worse the problems tend to become.
6
Biases in Ethical Decision-making
Obedience to authority – “I’m just following orders” (the good Nazi defense – Milgram experiments)
Conformity Bias – conform your judgment to the judgments of your reference group (Solomon Asch experiments)
Incrementalism – unconscious lowering of the ethical bar over time (the boiling frog syndrome)
Groupthink – pressure from group members to supress dissent (Ford Pinto)
Overoptimism – bad things that happen to other people will not happen to you (Marriage vs. Divorce)
Overconfidence – people believe they are more ethical than they actually are (instinctive judging)
Self-Serving Bias – process information in ways that advances self-interest & supports pre-existing views
Belief Persistence – tendency to hold onto beliefs long after the basis for those beliefs has been discredited
Causal Attribution Bias – the tendency to attribute success to your own efforts and failure to the efforts of others
Framing – change of risk preferences based on how information is framed (Potato Chips 95% fat free not 5% fat)
Sunk Costs/ Escalation of Commitment – throwing good money after bad (Barings Bank example)
The Tangible, the Close and the Near term – present tangible circumstances have more effect than future ones
Loss aversion – people enjoy gains only about half as much as they suffer from losses
Endowment Effect – people tend to value things more after they attach themselves to them
Rationalisations
| Strategy | Description | Examples |
| Denial of Responsibility | The actors engaged in corrupt behaviour perceive that they have no other choice than to participate | “What can I do? My arm is being twisted” or “It is none of my business what the company does overseas” |
| Denial of Injury | The actors are convinced that no one is harmed by their actions; hence the actions are not really immoral | “No one was really harmed” or “It could have been worse” |
| Denial of victim | The actors counter any blame for their actions by arguing that the violated party deserved what happened | “They deserved it” or “They chose to participate” |
| Social weighting | The actors assume two practices that moderate the salience of corrupt behaviors: (1) Condemning the condemner or (2) selective social comparison | “”You have no right to criticise us” or “Others are worse than we are” |
| Appeal to higher loyalties | The actors argue their violation results from their attempt to realise a higher-order value | “We answered to a more important cause” or “I would not report it because of my loyalty to my boss (or company)” |
| Metaphor of the ledger | The actors rationalise that they are entitled to indulge in deviant behaviour because of their accrued credits in their jobs | “We’ve earned the right” or “Its alright for me to use the internet for personal reasons at work. After all, I do work overtime” |
8
Bounded Awareness & Blind Spots
Bounded Awareness (Bazerman & Chugh, 2006)
We select and focus on certain elements of our environment to the exclusion of others
We create and perpetuate mental models based on this focus
“What we fail to see can hurt us”
Blind Spot (Moberg, 2006)
Managers are more interested in personal competence than moral character
Therefore, employees naturally frame issues in terms of personal competency (i.e. they develop a moral blindspot)
Some Questions:
Why do you think most people participated in this experiment?
What mental models were at play here?
What are the implications of this experiment for:
Leadership
Followership
Corporations
1. Why participated?
-Subjects put into situations for which they did not have learned patterns of behaviour to rely on;
-They identified with their roles, particularly in this stressful situations rather than stepping back from that role to realise that it is just one of the many that define us.
- Their mental models did not allow them to recognise this was wrong
2. Models
- Obedience to authority
- Focussing on the task at hand and blinded to the ethical issues (bounded awareness)
- Self-interest bias (e.g. the money the received) (moral blindspot)
10
