> I think Roy-Layford Pike in LO8489 has answered this query. I think
> one behaviour is not a measure of any specific value.
I would tend to agree, but it depends. If you steal from me, it tells me
something about you, and about your priorities, and that if you do it
once, you will very well do it again.
>Maybe, we can
> say a person holds a set of values, based on several actions over a
> period of time.
That is still behaviour, just not a single behaviour. Some of the
discussion on this topic appears to have values dangling, unconnected to
behaviour, or in fact anything else outside of the internal world of the
individual. In my view, we live in a society that promulgates
rationalizations for violating core values, and has demeaned the meaning
of values and principles. They are often seen as disposable and very
situational.
Granted that there is a truth that values are applied situationally.
However, to say that we hold universal values, but often don't act
consistent with those values, means that the concept of values is
virtually meaningless "out there" where people live and behave. It makes
values largely irrelevant to individuals and organizations.
I wonder about the value of discussing values, if values are not connected
to behaviours.
How does discussing these abstract constructs (which is what they are), if
they do not explain anything?
Robert Bacal dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
--Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>