On 23 Jun 96 Rol Fessenden wrote -
>
> Robert Says,
>
> I agree that values discussion that is not grounded in real concrete
> issues puts off a good number of people. There are some techniques that
> can be used to "test" values" for their applicability. Discussions of
> values, I think, need to address the limits of each "value"in real life,
> and the very practical issues that arise when values clash in real life.
> For example, if we value survival, and we value honesty, do we refuse to
> do something (foregoing the money), if we feel we cannot help our
> customer/client? I've found that people are very interested in discussing
> the dilemna, but not so much in discussing the abstract point.
>
> ========= End Quote ==========
>
> I find that discussion of values for most people tends to be less relevant
> than how our actions reflect our values. In other words, there are the
> values we espouse, and then there are the values-in-action -- the values
> discernible from our actions. Frequently these are not the same.
I believe that this discussion is very important, but needs some
definition. Specifically, a "value" is how we do things or accomplish our
goals as in how honestly, cooperatively, safely, respectfully, humbly,
knowledgeably, enthusiastically, fairly, forthrightly, compassionately and
the like.
Then there are goals such as survival, wealth, security, health and the
like. Because we value survival does not make it a "value". It remains a
goal or an end. Confusing "values" and goals leads to incorrect
conclusions.
I do not believe that values conflict, only that they appear to conflict
because of lack of understanding. I do not even believe that values
conflict with good ends such as survival. Many employees have concluded
that they cannot be honest and still retain their jobs, but what they mean
is that if they express their true opinions they would be fired. Honesty
does not include telling the truth about anything to anyone. It only
includes not telling a lie to anyone. I can thank someone for doing me
harm without it being a lie because I am trying to live by the" value" of
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Just because someone
else is doing bad things does not mean that we should be openly critical
of them, even if they work for us. For subordinates, the rule of criticize
in private, not in public only has a very few valid exceptions. For bosses
and peers, the rule is that it is not your job and criticism would be
detrimental for everyone, but even this rule has a few valid exceptions.
Many people act dishonestly in order to save their jobs. Every case I am
aware of (hundreds), dishonesty aided no one and only resulted in hurting
the person(s) who did the lying.
Other views? Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Pomo The Finest Tools for Managing People
Simonton Associates Based on the book
jpomo@gate.net "How to Unleash the Power of People"
--"jpomo@gate.net" <jpomo@gate.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>