In the recent communications regarding values and behavior, it might be
instructive to shift the focus a bit. We have been discussing why people
don't "act" in line with their "values"--what gets in the way, why we
falter at times (or most of the time), how we can increase our level of
congruity and integrity in our actions, etc.
What if we focus less on the behavior for a moment and look at the stated
values? Could it be that "values" which are not consistently "acted on"
are mostly an artifact of the thinking, rationalizing mind attempting to
harmonize with a community or cultural theme (meme?) or pattern?
When someone engages in behavior that is not consistent with their
"stated" values (or those that they would say they hold), the discrepancy,
when confronted, is usually explained by an appeal other more personally
pertinent values or to other less obviously value-related reasons--"they
wouldn't let me", "I'd lose my job", "he/she would blow up", "it won't
make any difference", etc. (Chris Argyris' work is illustrative here). I
would say that these "reasons"--much like the "espoused" values--are (in a
non-judgemental sense) rationalizations for behavior which is mostly
unconscious, unexamined, and automatic. Their function is mostly
explanatory. I would say that the gap that is perceived between value and
action is a reflection of the insubstantiability of the espoused value,
and the perceived necessity for the behavior--what some people might call
the "actual value". In other words, we do what we "have" to do.
At this point the question becomes for me whether it is accurate to call
unexamined and mostly unconscious behavior a value at all. Perhaps it is
just a pattern of behavior learned at a very deep level and largely
unaffected by the rational, conscious mind in the course of day to day
actions. This would explain why Chris Argyris could present a map of a
system which described ineffective behavior, have it understood by the
members of that system, and still be assured that the system would remain
in place in spite of a desire to no longer continue that pattern on the
part of all those involved.
To carry this thought further, then, what may be necessary in many cases
is not so much that we debate or highlight the relative merit of this or
that value in organizations, but, instead concentrate on helping people to
attend to their own behavior, assess its impact and outcomes on themselves
and others, and begin to "create values" for themselves--guidelines _and
experiences_ of acting with integrity. Being able, in other words, to
become conscious and consistent in aligning their actions with their words
_and_ their words with their actions.
And, not surprisingly, as I reread what I have written I find myself
focusing on "others" when I _really_ mean doing these things for myself.
I must begin and end with myself, for to do otherwise is to leave my own
legitimate ground of insight and action and once again fall into the very
pattern and dilemma I wish to resolve.
I am not sure if this "shift" of focus is being clearly communicated,
mainly because I am "thinking out loud" here. I would appreciate if there
are others who could add to the conversation and contribute to the clarity
(or clarify the error) of this "emerging" idea.
Any takers?
--Tobin Quereau Austin Community College quereau@austin.cc.tx.us
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>