A short while ago, I posted an article about Motivators, where I discussed the model developed by Edward Spranger of 7 motivational styles that are based on our underlying values. The thesis was that people generally behave, interact with others or make decisions based on the degree of importance that they attribute to their personal combination of these 7 motivators. By understanding the underlying blend of a person’s motivators, we can learn a lot about the values that drive them and thereby gain some insight into how they might align with a given role or expressed behaviors, react to a specific problem or relate to a certain company culture.
This article presents a very different model, developed by Robert S. Hartman, a philosopher who did extensive work in the 1960’s in an effort to quantify a person’s values and value system. Hartman’s writing and work is some fairly heady stuff that made my brain hurt when I first learned it, but after struggling through, I was able to see great potential application of the principles he developed, and the mechanisms available to measure them.
I’m going to do my best to present a high-level understanding of Hartman’s work and discuss how it can be useful, not only in learning about a person’s underlying values and thinking style, but also in defining a process that can be applied to good decision-making. If you’re in a position where you need to hire or promote employees into an already-existing team or environment, you may want to pay attention here. Being able to qualify someone based in part on this criteria, along with other good hiring practices and assessments, can be a “secret weapon” in going beyond a person’s aptitude alone when considering them for a role. Likewise, if you need to make important decisions at work, this model can help you think about your decisioning process and the criteria you consider and focus on to be sure that your thinking and decision-making is balanced.
Being able to qualify someone based in part on this criteria…can be a “secret weapon” in going beyond a person’s aptitude alone when considering them for a role.
Hartman’s work resulted in the development of a mathematical and philosophical model around the “science of human values” and used the term axiology to refer to it. In this model, he identified 3 distinct areas that people’s brains pay attention to, simplified as: People, Tasks and Systems. For each of the areas, he defined 2 parts: intrinsic, referring to a person’s internal self-view in that area, and extrinsic, referring to a person’s external worldview in that area, thus yielding a total of 6 dimensions. Hartman believed that the depth to which a person understands each of these dimensions and the amount of attention they pay to each one can reveal a lot about how they think and how they make decisions.
People represents a person’s intrinsic view of themselves (their self-worth or self-esteem) and extrinsic view of others (their ability to empathize with, appreciate and understand others). People who are adept in the People dimension are considered to be intuitive in their thinking style.
Tasks represents a person’s intrinsic ability to understand their personal role in any given circumstance, and the practical worth of extrinsic objects, tasks and results or common-sense thinking about the activities around them. People who are adept in the Tasks dimension are considered to be practical in their thinking style.
Systems represents a person’s intrinsic sense of mission and commitment to their own ideas, a strength in self-direction and the ability to appreciate the extrinsic structures, order, rules, guidelines and standards in the world around them in a “big picture” way. This mindset is process-focused, with emphasis on the journey over the destination. People who are adept in the Systems dimension are considered to be conceptual in their thinking style.
Hartman developed an assessment called the Hartman Value Profile (HVP) that tests and reports on the clarity with which a person understands the 6 dimensions and the attentiveness paid to each one. The reason for the distinctions of clarity and attentiveness ties back to Hartman’s original descriptions of value and valuating. Suffice it to say that these distinctions account for situations in which a person fully understands a dimension, and either does not pay much attention to it, or pays a balanced amount of attention to it, or pays too much attention to it when making decisions. The distinctions can also account for situations in which a person lacks true visceral understanding of a dimension and therefore fails to consider some important criteria that could or would be obvious to someone with a different style.
What goes into a good decision-making process? To understand this, we should be precise about the question we are trying to answer. We aren’t trying to describe whether or not specific decisions will yield successful outcomes. What we are trying to describe, though, is which thought processes and activities will increase the likelihood of good decision-making, and how does a person’s clarity and attentiveness to Hartman’s dimensions affect those thought processes and activities.
With credit to my colleagues and the Training Team at Assessments24x7, where I earned my HVP certification (among others), here is a sample of a process that can be used to make good decisions where these dimensions matter:
Identify -> Measure -> Compare
1. Identify (before the decision). Determine and explicate the core issues of the problem, challenge or opportunity. Think about the workability and feasibility of success of each of the options you are evaluating. Understand and factor in the expectations, rules, guidelines, resource and time constraints that are present. Ask whether each option would be accepted by others.
Depending on a person’s clarity and attentiveness to Hartman’s dimensions, this step can yield different results. For example, a person who thinks of solutions by paying more attention to short-term results (extrinsic/tasks) of something that currently exists only conceptually (extrinsic/systems) may have difficulty in prioritizing what is most relevant. By contrast, a person who fully embraces rules and guidelines (intrinsic/systems) and is confident about the role they play both in the environment, generally (intrinsic/tasks), and specifically regarding the decision at-hand may do quite well.
2. Measure (while making the decision). Think about the impact of the proposed solution(s). Ascertain that your understanding of the inputs is clear and that you are evaluatingthe solution by paying attention to the correct attributes and not overlooking or ignoring others.
This critical component requires that a person has a good capacity for understanding and evaluating impact (extrinsic/people) as well as enough practical judgment (extrinsic/tasks) to adequately determine what to focus on and if they are leaving something out. A person may want or need to reach out to others for affirmation, but whether or not they actually do so may be driven by their self-confidence or lack thereof (intrinsic/people). A person must also have the ability to see and set realistic goals and the persistence to stay on target (intrinsic/systems). Too much focus on what others think (extrinsic/people) may also stifle someone’s capacity here.
3. Compare (once the decision is made). Does the solution match the expectations? Can it be executed within the time and resource constraints? Does it introduce new risks or consequences? Is the decision in-line with the rules, guidelines and constraints that were determined in step 1?
To be successful here, a person must first return to the original core problem-set to answer these questions. Doing so successfully requires self-awareness (intrinsic/people) to “know what you don’t know” and an excellent ability to step back and see the total picture (extrinsic/systems). Someone who is challenged by moving from short-term “now” oriented thinking that seeks immediate benefits to the more conceptual overall “vision” may struggle here.
Hartman’s model and assessment have been compared to results from psychological instruments such as MMPI or CAQ, and these studies found statistically significant correlations. Other studies have addressed its validity and reliability and have also come back with high scores. To be honest, when I first took the assessment, I was baffled by its brevity. The assessment asks the subject to arrange 2 sets of 18 phrases based on simple criteria explained at the start of the assessment (good/bad, agree/disagree). I found myself asking “that’s it?” and thinking “no way!” However, when I saw my own results, I was floored by how much I agreed with the results that identified my own clarity and attentiveness in the 6 dimensions.
There are many factors that go into decision-making, thinking style and personality. HVP is just one tool in the arsenal that can help us take note of these and improve our own awareness. If you are interested in making use of the Hartman Value Profile for yourself or your company, please contact me.
