I like what Alex has said here:
> I wholeheartedly agree. What we may overlook in this values-behavior
> debate is that behavior implies values, and not the stated values of the
> individual. This is distressing to us as individuals, and begins the
> rationalization process. "We can't do this because . . ." We fail to
> perceive that the rationalizations are values. At some unconscious,
> unaware level, we are valuing those things more that result in day-to-day
> behaviors. The perception of the gap between our stated values and our
> implied values can be startling.
> It begins with owning up to the reality--that what I do, regardless of
> whether I admire those values, results from a "valuing" decision at some
> point. For instance, I may value comfort and the illusion of harmony more
> than taking risks and surfacing conflict in my personal life. I don't
> like this situation. But it's the truth.
> The key here is I don't think we've made the connection between behaviors
> and those other values, the ones we say we don't really value and yet do
> day in and day out.
Exactly, and a very good point. I read recently (I can't remember where, I
read too many books at one time) that integrity should not be defined as
living in accordance with our values. Instead, integrity should be defined
as clearly determining which of all the values we have will be given
governance over our lives, and then living according to those values. All
other values should be essentially ignored.
This is a great challenge for both individuals and organizations. Scott
Adams brings this out in his wonderful book "The Dilbert Principle":
"An employee suggests setting priorities so the company will know how to
apply its limited resources. The manager's response: 'Why can't we
concentrate our resources across the board?"
And here is the problem: When we don't clearly define which of all the
things we value we will actually pursue, then we spend our lives churning
our wheels, accomplishing very little. Certainly that is not a form of
integrity, is it?
I've seen more than one organization explicitly define values that
actually contradict one another. How is that going to create coherent and
aligned behavior within the organization? And, then, the problem is
propounded because "those other values" -- the ones nobody wants to admit
exist -- often conflict with stated values. This causes some rather
serious problems.
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell, GroupWare Support Quality Manager | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>