> On 27 Jun 96 at 18:16, Rol Fessenden wrote:
>
> > Getting back to Joan's question, for me as an individual, the
> > conflict gets resolved, but only through a long difficult process.
> > For others who arrive at the opposite action, the conflict also gets
> > resolved, but only through a long, difficult process.
Robert commented on 29 June -
> The conflict of the values may not be resolved...even though you come to a
> "decision" about what your behaviour will be. Our society, for example,
> values both individual rights, and group rights. These often come into
> conflict. Each decision point may eventually be resolved in terms of a
> decision being made, but that does NOT mean that the conflict between the
> two values is resolved.
Something which has helped me to understand how people use values and to
understand conflicts is to separate "how to" values from things we value.
By "how to " values I mean how to act in accordance with values such as
fairness, love, charity, humility, knowledge, respect, enthusiasm,
forgiveness, forthrightness, honesty, loyalty, integrity, selflessness,
confidence, quality, neatness, cleanliness and the like. By things we
value, I mean individual rights, monetary wealth, air/water quality,
animal rights, group rights and the like.
By making these groupings, I believe that it is then possible to analyze
situations over which we feel that a conflict exists. Conflicts between
things we value seem to be the rule and not the exception and require
compromises in order to arrive at solutions which reasonable people can
accept. But conflicts between the "how to" values IMHO arise from not
being aware of a solution which will satisfies all or not being able to
bring ourselves to accept the one solution which satisfies all. Less
emotionally based people seem to have less of a problem with the latter
case, but more with the former and vice versa.
Robert continued -
> In any event, the denial of values conflict (compartmentalization of
> values) is a primary process in anti-social behaviour. Those that can
> rationalize their conduct DESPITE the fact that they hold a value opposing
> their behaviur, often use denial.
> That is why, for example, a person can commit crimes, but feel perfectly
> comfortable that they are honest people.
The latter may be true because each of us believes that we are as good as
our values and that we are not our behavior. As concerns denial of values
as a primary process, we have developed a way of looking at a cause which
connects to leadership in the workplace. In order to conform, followers
use the "how to" values which they experience at work. The boss may act
arrogantly so the follower decides that being disrespectful to others
including customers is OK.
The boss may appear to be of questionable honesty or integrity so the
followers use that standard as their own. As people act dishonestly, more
people become convinced that dishonesty is OK in the "everyone else is
doing it so why shouldn't I?" syndrome. In this manner, people find an
"excuse" for their own incorrect actions, actions which they will admit do
violate their own "how to" values.
The above seems to work well in the workplace since armed with these
models, any boss can then track down the "excuses" in use and correct the
leadership which communicated them. The boss can also use the tactic of
causing people to change from being externally directed followers to being
internally directed non-followers, this tactic having the largest effect
on commitment and creativity.
Regards, 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/>