The Conscious Competence Ladder

The Conscious Competence Ladder is a learning model used to identify what an individual’s competence level is on a learning scale. The Conscious Competence Ladder of learning infers that an individual will climb the ladder as they acquire and build expertise in a new area.

Level 1 – Unconscious Incompetence
At this level the individual does not understand or realize that they are lacking in a competence area.

Level 2 – Conscious Incompetence
At this level the individual realizes that there are skills and knowledge that they need to acquire and that there are others that are competent in this skill.

Level 3 – Conscious Competence
At this level the individual has acquired new skills and knowledge, is putting it into practice and is consciously refining this skill/knowledge.

Level 4 – Unconscious Competence
At this level the individual has become unaware of their skill because it is performed in an automatic way.

Attempts have been made to add a Level 5 to the Conscious Competence Ladder. Level 5 has been described in several different ways. One way is as “conscious competence of unconscious competence”, which describes a person’s ability to recognize and develop unconscious incompetence in others. Nonaka (1994) indirectly describes a possible Level 5 as “reflective competence”, which is the appraisal of one’s own skills and knowledge. Within “reflective competence” an individual searchers for a depth of information that builds off their existing competency base.

If you were to imagine a Level 5 what would it be?

Individual Differences In Negative Tolerance

I had an interesting thing happen to me today…My husband asked how a recent meeting with my boss had gone? My initial reply was "we don't have time now to get into it." (it was 8:10am and I had to get to work) but he insisted that I tell him. So, being the chatty women I am I started telling him about the words that were said and the meaning I inferred. The promises I was told that I know in my heart will not come true. After approximately one and a half minutes my husband (still lying in bed) picked up his blackberry and started reading his email. I stopped, looked at him and asked "why did you stop listening to me?" His response really got me thinking "because you are being negative!"

Wow…I walked out (not mad) and thought I am being negative but what surprised me more was his lack of tolerance for my negativity. In general I am a very optimistic and positive person. My psychological assessments usually read that my biggest downfall is that I think positively about too many people and should try to balance out my optimism. But lately I have realized that my own tolerance for negativity is low (or high). There are several people in my workplace that complain about everything. After approximately 7 months I realize that it is affecting my attitude. I feel guilty even saying this because it insinuates that I only want to surround myself with positive people. Well...When I think about it I do.

As a research I started contemplating "what are the individual levels of tolerance for affect?" Research indicates that people have individual dispositions toward positive and negative affect (they aren't mutually exclusive). Individuals with high positive affect are more creative, social and optimistic. Individuals with high negative affect are more logical, and systematic. But what is the tolerance level for these differences.

Going back to my own test dummies (my husband and I) it is interesting. Myself for example…I have high positive affect and have been tolerating others negativity for several months without it effecting me. After 7 months it has built up and is starting to but I am constantly coming up with solutions to create a more positive environment even if it involves talking to the negative individual less and/or changing my psychological perception of how my day will go.

My husband on the other hand has high negative affect (he is extremely logical and a little pessimistic). I would count on the fact that he has a much lower tolerance for negativity than I do because I bring him down quicker. I wouldn’t be surprised if he liked me because I am positive and that this morning’s events were his lack of tolerance of negativity.

Just think about it. In general do you have high positive/negative affect? What is your tolerance for negativity at home/work?

To test you positive/negative affect click here. On the 4th page of this document is the PANAS, a well known and respected measure of positive and negative affect. The scoring for this measure is on page 5.

Dissertation Process

I have finalized my idea which I may share later....Wrote up my proposal...and now going through the dreadful process of dealing with a professor that has too many other priorities. Ahhhhh! Who out there shares my frustrations? When I have a client at work or a project at work it never takes this long to get feedback (more like 5 minutes instead of 2 months). I just can't wait to have that PhD and be done with this silly journey.

Dogs in the Board Room

I have been researching the psychological and organizational benefits of pets in the workplace. It is incredible how pets can lower your blood pressure, help reduce stress, increase social interaction and increase task performance. Seriously, you look at your dog feel love but never really think of him/her as a health-emotion-work improver.

Now, that said I think I might need to start forcing my company to let me bring my dog into work just so I can get over this hump of a month I have been having.

I know that there are a few challenging to having pets in the workplace (i.e., allergies) but just being able to take a 10 min walk (instead of the smoke breaks so many take) or have him/her sit on my lap for a minute really would make my smile more, take on more challenging projects and just feel better about my day.

Get your office to let the dog in the boards room. For great companies that do check out Nestle Purina, and Dominos.

How To Maintain Trust...

As a graduate student one of the main trends you see in the life cycle literature it that organizations that conduct layoffs ultimately die. In our current economy this is just NOT the case. Layoffs and downsizing have become expected proceedures in business.

It is not ever easy to conduct layoffs or deal with the aftermath. Check out Dr. Pam Franta's free webinar that address just this issue. She shares an approach to restructuring that conveys compassion for those affected, minimizes fear for those still onboard, and fosters renewed trust and commitment among employees moving forward.

1. Specifically, you will discover proactive strategies on how to:
   
2. Prepare those affected with an innovative process to help optimize future employment opportunities
   
3. Manage anxiety by keeping interactions with remaining employees positive
   Incorporate two‐way communication to regain commitment and trust for the future.

CHECK IT OUT

Old Disseration Ideas

The Influence of Servant Leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors, commitment and job satisfaction: A Longitudinal Investigation

Abstract: This study examined the relationship between servant-leadership and employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Utilizing a mixed methods approach to the study, three survey instruments were administered to the participants. The instruments measured servant leadership as perceived by non-supervisory employees, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and other rated organizational citizenship behaviors. Demographic data for gender, age, education, and years in the organization were variables utilized in the analysis of the response data. Quantitative methods were applied to obtain statistical measurements of the response data. Qualitative data were obtained via in-depth interviews with the participants who ascertained that their supervisors demonstrated servant-leadership characteristics.
Research Question:

Q1: How do employee’s perceptions of their leader effect their organizational citizenship behaviors, commitment and job satisfaction?

Q2: Do servant leaders predict the variability of employees OCBs, commitment and job satisfaction?

Management Style

There are many types of management styles discussed throughout management literature. However, the majority of empirically supported research focuses on two dimensions of management people orientation verses task orientation. There are many names that have been used for these two dimensions including warmth, consideration and supporting. The people orientation aspect reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to have relationships with direct reports, peers and supervisors characterized by trust and respect. A high people orientation score would indicate a good relationship filled with two-way communication. Task or structure orientation reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to focus of the duties and tasks of employees, direct and tell others, plan ahead, schedule and criticize. A high score would indicate that employees would be results driven. Individual information about one’s management style can illustrate patterns and provide feedback at an early stage of management. This type of information has been proven useful in courses ranging from first-line supervisory training to executive development.

People orientation and task orientation are independent variables illustrating that an employee can be high or low on both axis. For example, an employee low on both would be submissive and passive aggressive while an employee high in both would be collaborative, coaching and results orientated.

Several studies have illustrated that mangers that are low in both consideration and structure are more likely to be bypassed by direct reports and may not be perceived as a functional manager (Fleishman, 1973). Mangers with high structure and low consideration are more likely to have greater turnover, dissatisfaction and stress among direct reports (Fleishman, 1973). However, research results indicate that managers high in consideration and high in structure do not have these adverse effects. Three of the four quadrants correlate significantly with positive aspects of job performance (ex. Low turnover, good attitudes, and low stress). However, low consideration/low structure did not show significant correlations with any positive outcomes.
Research has indicated that employees whom are people and task orientated are the strongest managers. Thau, Bennett, Mitchell and Marrs (2009) recently found that management style can change the strength and direction (i.e., moderate) of the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Results illustrated that direct reports were more deviant when managers had a highly task orientated style and a low people orientation (Thau et al., 2009). Bass (1958, 1956) and Parker (1963) empirically illustrated that consideration was related to performance ratings (r = .32), attitudes toward supervision (r = .51) , and goal achievement (r = .24). Structure was significantly related to favorable attitudes toward supervision (r = .22) and errors (r = .23; Parker, 1963). It is evident that management style is predictive of followers behaviors and attitudes.