May 18, 2014 | Posted in: Leading Hartfully, Living Hartfully

Leave a Comment

Couldn’t we all just get along? Individual and organizational success depends upon the quality and effectiveness of the working relationships between people. Conflicts that arise between people can damage a healthy personal or professional environment and affect individual or organizational productivity. By providing people with powerful insights into the motivations behind behavior, having the knowledge about Relationship Awareness^® helps to build better relationships both personally and professionally. We work together more effectively when we better understand potential differences between ourselves and others — an understanding that empowers us to choose behavior that achieves intended results.

When we have a way to better predict how others will react to situations, we are better able to approach that person in the manner that will be most successful, and then be prepared to handle the outcome of the encounter.  Leaders who deploy learning assessments for themselves and their teams are better positioned to improve morale and meaning at work. When we know better, we are capable of doing better and we have the tools in the form of assessments to help us know better. There are many dozens of personality and leadership assessments on the market and I will cover one of my favorites in this article.

Relationship Awareness Theory, like many psychological theories, holds that all people want to have relationships with other people. It is a Motivational Theory which addresses the motives that are behind everyday behavior when we are relating to others. Like Freudian theory, it assumes that there is meaning behind all behavior. By shifting our focus from only looking at behavior or outcomes, to looking at the motive behind the behavior, we can gain a clearer understanding of ourselves and others. Therein lies the basic difference between typologies such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or the DISC, which measure behavioral outcomes and the Strength Deployment Inventory, which measures the motivations behind the behavior. For example, we all eat, which is a behavior. But we each have a different motivation behind our behavior of eating such as stress, boredom, social obligation, forced by parent, hunger, to get strong, to grow taller, or to get healthy.

Developed by Dr. Elias Porter with over forty years studying Freud, Eric Fromm and practice as a psychologist under tutelage of Carl Rogers, the theory assumes that behavior arises from purposeful strivings for gratification. Motives, what people want from relationships, are the basic antecedents for behavior. Behavior flows from how one’s character is organized and the manner in which character is organized stems from certain motivations, and motivations come from needs. People are born with a predisposition for a particular motive set. From Fromm’s writings, Dr. Porter further articulated that there were four main strivings, or motivations apparent in us, based on consistencies in behavior and characteristics predominantly found in these four main categories of motivations, along with three other blends of the main categories.

Each of us has internal motives, the why’s of our behavior and communication styles. It is assumed that we each have some quantity of each of the personal strengths in our makeup. The degree of each strength varies from person to person so that no two people are exactly alike, even when the personal strengths that we use most frequently are the same. Unlike other “personality profiles” that quantify only a handful of measured styles, Relationship Awareness Theory and the accompanying Strength Deployment Inventory measures 27 million different individual styles by acknowledging our differing styles both in and out of conflict.

Behavior and the way we communicate, work, or interact with others flows from conceptual orientation, and conceptual orientation flows from systems of strivings. Relationship Awareness Theory is based on the premise that our behavior traits are consistent with what we find gratifying in interpersonal relations and with concepts or beliefs we hold about how to interact with others to achieve those gratifications.

Relationship Awareness Theory identifies three styles of relating and communicating which have very different motives and outcomes.  The first, the Valued Relating Style (VRS) is a cluster of behaviors consistent with our own Motivational Value System, which supports our sense of self-worth.  It is our internal filter through which life is interpreted and understood, a unifying set of motivational values, which serve as the basis for judging ourselves and others and for engaging in behavior that enhances our sense of personal worth. When we operate out of our Valued Relating Style, we are in the zone and feel a sense of flow with natural and easy behavior that is comfortable to us and we are rewarded by that behavior.

Each Motivational Value System carries with it a cluster of behaviors called the Valued Relating Style (VRS), the external expression of the Motivational Value System. The style of relating which a person normally prefers to use is their Valued Relating Style – the style of relating to others we most often like to follow because most of the time it makes us feel good about ourselves to act that way. When we frequently use a particular set of behaviors or communication in a particular way, it becomes our most noticeable and most “characteristic” pattern of behavior.

Below are the four main motives for behavior and the three blends of behavior called the Motivational Value Systems. Each category has a light side and a dark side. When a positive trait or strength is overdone or misapplied, it becomes a detriment or a weakness. Some of the characteristic traits are listed with each style below.

1. The first primary style is those whose major striving is to be genuinely helpful to and nurturing to others, with little or no concern for what they receive in return. They have the Altruistic-Nurturing Motivation. Leaders with this style may be more willing to bend a rule or let go of a desired outcome in exchange for better morale or the benefit of an individual employee – trusting that creating a better working environment will lead to a desired goal.
   1. Characteristic Strengths: trusting, loyal, helpful, modest, devoted, caring, supportive
   2. Overdone Strengths: gullible, blind follower, smothering, self-effacing, subservient, submissive
2. Those associated with the exploitative orientation (the striving to take from others) whose major concern is to be leaders of others, but not at others’ expense have the Assertive-Directing Motivation. They are concerned with task accomplishment and organization of resources. The Valued Relating Style that supports this Motivational Value System would likely include competitive, persuasive or risk-taking behaviors, and would be inclined to do whatever it took to get the job done. They tend to be outcome oriented and may try to find the quickest route to a desirable result and want to be the first to market with new products or ideas. They may be willing to reduce research time or over-burden individuals in pursuit of results.
   1. Characteristic Strengths: self-confident, ambitious, persuasive, forceful, competitive, risk taker
   2. Overdone Strengths: arrogant, ruthless, abrasive, dictatorial, rash, combative, gambler
3. Those who predominantly display the hoarding orientation (the striving for infinite security) whose major concern is with logic and analysis to create order and achieve self-reliance and self-dependence (not independence) as their way of relating to others have the Analytic-Autonomizing Motivation. They tend to be concerned about processes, fairness and order. They may prioritize standards, accuracy, and thoroughness in their decision-making. They may be willing to defer an opportunity or restrict access to needed resources until certain of the appropriate action.
   1. Characteristic Strengths: cautious, reserved, methodical, analytical, principled, fair, preserving
   2. Overdone Strengths: suspicious, cold, rigid, nit picking, unbending, unfeeling, stubborn,
4. The last primary style is those who display a multiplicity of behaviors, in a consensus-based style, fairly evenly divided amongst the above three orientations have a varying concern depending upon the situation. They can float between the other motivations based upon their needs at that time and their way of relating to others is known as the Flexible-Cohering motivation. These people tend to be concerned about incorporating input from multiple sources to produce a result acceptable to all parties. They tend to select strategies that allow future flexibility and preserve or generate future options. In an effort to balance their decision-making, they may make decisions that look inconsistent to observers and are often termed unpredictable.
   1. Characteristic Strengths: flexible, open to change, socializer, experimenter, adaptable, tolerant
   2. Overdone Strengths: wishy-washy, inconsistent, aimless, spineless, uncaring, without focus

We learn these behaviors and become entrenched in them as we grow up by getting positive feedback through exhibiting these behaviors. We learn that when we practice this behavior and are rewarded, the behavior strengthens and will be used, or deployed, with more frequency than other behaviors. Those with other Motivational Value Systems may also deploy similar behaviors, but value them differently, choose them less often, or use them in service of different goals, making them a part of a different Valued Relating Style.

Caution must be used to group people in categories based upon their consistency in behavior according to that particular style. It gives us a very valuable base for predicting much of a person’s behavior, yet we must avoid stereotyping and predicting that because the individual behaves in “this way” as a general rule he or she will behave in “this way” in a specific instance. Thought must be given as to whether or not that particular style of behaving is most likely to produce the outcome that person wants to produce.

The Strength Deployment Inventory^®, Relationship Awareness® tools are trademarks of Personal Strengths Publishing. Leaders who want to shine some light on the blind spots of themselves and their teams would be wise to embrace the teachings of Dr. Elias Porter and his assessment to help uncover the motivations behind the behaviors of a work team. Once we see what the light reveals, it is very difficult to hide in the darkness again. For this and other assessments for yourself and your team to enlighten the workplace, contact Gaia@GaiaHart.com.