This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
1
Ways of Thinking about our values in the workplace
This note begins with the assumption that most of us want to find ways to voice and act on our values in
the workplace, and to do so effectively. We focus here on situations where we believe that we know
what is right and want to do it, but we experience external pressures – from our boss, our colleagues, our
customers – to do otherwise. As a result, we are not sure how to raise our concerns. The focus here is not
on situations where we are tempted to do something we believe is wrong, for our own personal gain and
because we believe we can get away with it. While this is a relevant topic, it is for another day.
Now some might say that what we really want is to be able to feel like we have voiced and acted on our
values. And this desire may lead us just as easily – perhaps more easily – to focus our energy on finding
ways to rationalize what we say and do such that it appears consistent with our values, as opposed to
focusing our energy on finding ways to actually be consistent with our values. Research on self-bias
would tend to support this view.1
Others might point out that the real problem in the starting assumption is the idea of voicing and acting
on our values “effectively.” That is, given the organizational and personal barriers to acting on our
values, success in this arena is elusive. Thus even if we don’t succumb to the self-justifying bias noted
above, many — if not most of us — will abandon attempts to follow our values simply because we don’t
believe it is possible to do so.2 We may believe that despite our best efforts and courage, we will not be
able to change the offending organizational practice or influence the offending individuals, especially if
they are our superiors in the organization and/or if they appear to be in the majority.
In addition, we may fear the price we would be forced to pay – anything from social disapproval to
negative career consequences and/or financial and family disruptions. Certainly research on whistleblowers suggests that they often suffer both personally and professionally. We all have seen, heard, or at
least can imagine, stories of individuals who raised unpopular or uncomfortable questions and were
1 David M. Messick and Max H. Bazerman, “Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decision Making,” Sloan
Management Review, Winter 1996, Volume 37, Number 2, Reprint 3721, page 11.
2 A 2003 study conducted by the Ethics Research Center uncovered that workers do not raise ethical issues on the job for two
main reasons: 1) They fear personal retaliation; and 2) they are convinced that senior management won’t do anything about
an ethical problem once it is brought to their attention.” David Batstone, “Right Reality: You Cannot Train Employees to Be
Ethical,” [email protected].
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
2
subsequently seen as naïve as or less than committed to doing what it takes to succeed.3 However, the
type of action we are talking about here precedes, and hopefully makes unnecessary, external whistleblowing. That is, we are talking about efforts to make change within an organization via problem redefinition, creative problem-solving, constructive engagement, persuasion, reasoning, personal example
and leadership.
And of course it is important not to underestimate how difficult it can be to even know what our own
core values are, and whether or not a particular practice conflicts with them. As has been often pointed
out by thoughtful people, ranging from ethicists to political scientists, many of the thorniest choices we
face in our lives are less about right versus wrong decisions than about right versus right. If this were not
the case, a consequentialist approach to ethics (weighing the relative costs and benefits of different
actions) would be both easier to apply and much less necessary. As Robert Kane writes in Through the
Moral Maze:
The first of much confusion that people have about ethics concerns the value of
thinking about it. Ethical argument is not primarily directed at those who are bent
on doing evil. It is directed in the first instance not at bad people, but at good
people whose convictions are being drained by intellectual and moral
confusions.4
Given all these objections to the very framing of our opening assumption here, it is important to clarify
that this note is not about denying the tendency to rationalize in the service of self-justification. Nor is it
about downplaying the obstacles to effective action in the face of values conflicts, or about denying the
risks. It is not even about avoiding the complexities involved in actually clarifying what actions best
support our values.
Rather this note is about acknowledging that nevertheless, some people do voice and act on their values,
and do so effectively. This note is about recognizing that there is much to be learned from looking at
how and why they do so. And this note is about noticing that they do so not simply in spite of each of
the above objections, but also because of their sophisticated understanding of the objections themselves.
That is, they make an effort to know themselves and to thus better understand others, diminishing the
impact of self-justifying rationalizations. They think strategically about how to implement their values,
thereby diminishing the risks they face; and when the risks are unavoidable, they view them clear-eyed
and prepare themselves. After all, risk management is not always about avoiding risks; rather it is often
about anticipating, preparing for and mitigating them. And they learn to communicate about values
openly and clearly, thus ensuring that they have access to more and better information with which to
make considered decisions.
This note is about ways to think about and accomplish all of these things and so finally, this note is
about acknowledging and enabling choice.
3 And once we have tried to raise issues internally, if unsuccessful, we may feel the need to take more public action.
4 Robert Kane, Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a Pluralistic World. M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p.10.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
3
The Origins of Giving Voice to Values
The Aspen Institute Business and Society Program and Yale School of Management Giving Voice to
Values initiative is a program of research and curriculum development designed to analyze and share the
many ways that business practitioners can voice and implement their values in the face of countervailing
pressures in the workplace.
The approach to values born from this initiative and described in this note grows out of a rich set of
inputs. As we will see in subsequent pages, the power and effectiveness of our efforts to voice and act
on our values is often driven by the power and persuasiveness of the stories we tell about them.
Therefore, let us begin by sharing the story of how the approach described here was born – both the
personal story and the public story.
First to the personal story.5 When I started work at a business school – the Harvard Business School in
the mid-1980s – I experienced culture shock. This was a time when even the student newspapers at
business schools crowed that students would attempt a hostile takeover of their grandmothers if they
could make a profit at it.
I was fresh out of graduate school with a doctorate in the Humanities and nothing had prepared me for
this new world. I was excited by the energy, the clarity of intention and the sheer logic of the place. It
seemed the opposite of everything I had known. I would joke with my friends that when my fellow
doctoral students in literature and film used to ask. “How are you?” I would be considered suspect –
either shallow or ignorant – if I answered without the requisite level of angst, seasoned with knowing
despair. At the business school, on the other hand, the accepted response to that greeting was “Great,
just great!” delivered in a firm and confident tone with direct eye contact and, preferably, accompanied
with an energetic shake of one’s right arm and closed fist. What looking glass had I stumbled through?
Business school and the corporate offices of senior executives I frequented as a researcher, case writer
and eventually faculty member were halls of purposefulness and confidence. Whereas the test of
intelligence had previously been the ability to take a single passage of poetry or fiction and open it up,
revealing multiple layers of meaning and nuance, the performance test here seemed to be the ability to
define a problem so precisely and cleanly that all irrelevancy fell away and one was left with a clearly
solvable equation or a single principle to optimize. It was a beautiful and heady world, albeit one to
which I was unaccustomed.
Twenty years after my introduction to that world, we live in a time when the once astonishing M&A
deals of the eighties are surpassed and even dwarfed on a regular basis and when CEOs, having risen to
the status of popular heroes in the late 1990s, face heightened public scrutiny as a result of the widely
publicized and stunning excesses and abuses of the early 2000s. But despite this fall from grace, the
belief in the power and the efficacy of business has not diminished; rather, it is the public’s trust in the
business agenda and its methods that has been tarnished. In fact, the degree of public and government
5 Much of this section is drawn from “Is there free will in business? Leadership and social impact management” by Mary C.
Gentile in Handbook of Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business, edited by Jonathan P. Doh and Stephen
A. Stumpf, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., Northampton, MA, 2005, pp. 221-240.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
4
scrutiny and even cynicism that business and its leaders encounter today is a direct reflection of the
amount of power, control and capacity they are believed to wield.
This brings us to a fundamental irony about leadership in this arena. Business leaders and aspiring
business leaders in free market contexts are attracted to the potential to make an impact, to build
something tangible, to manage and control an enterprise and, of course, to make money. This is a world
of “can do” attitudes, of belief in the individual’s capacity to make a difference by sheer dint of talent
and hard work. And yet, when it comes to the arena of social impacts and ethical action, these business
practitioners all too often protest that their hands are tied. When it comes to running their business in a
manner that explicitly serves society, both through the value it creates and also the values it preserves,
they often appear to believe that the market prevents them from doing as much as they might wish. I find
myself wondering how the arena of free market capitalism, so steeped in the orthodoxy of individualism
and a belief in the mastery of one’s own fate, can be so constrained? Is there free will in business?
The Giving Voice to Values initiative is a response to this irony.
Moving from the personal story, let us consider some of the other inputs to this work. In 2001 and 2002,
the Aspen Institute conducted a survey of MBA student attitudes regarding the role of business in wider
society. When asked whether they expected they would have to make business decisions that conflicted
with their personal values during their careers, half the respondents in 2002 (and more than half in 2001)
believed that they would. The vast majority of respondents both years reported it would be “very likely”
or “somewhat likely” that they would experience this as stressful. And in 2001, over half of respondents
said their response to such a conflict would be to look for another job; in 2002 that number declined to
35 percent still a significant number. One in five students reported that their business education was not
preparing them at all to manage such conflicts, and the majority said they were only being prepared
“somewhat.”6
Student and faculty reports from business schools reinforce this observation that students expect to
encounter values conflicts during their careers. In fact, they have already faced them by the time they
return to graduate school. A few years ago, Columbia Business School invited incoming MBA students
to write a one page essay about a time when they had experienced a conflict between their values and
what they were asked to do in the workplace.
The conflicts these young managers described in hundreds of essays were often quite similar — pressure
to overstate billable hours; to adjust economic forecasts; to adjust earnings reports; to inflate product
capabilities or understate the timeframe needed to provide services; to place organizational priorities
above individual loyalties; and so on.
But despite the similar stories they told, these students’ responses were sometimes quite different. Many
reported their discomfort with such conflicts but a quiet acceptance of the impossibility of resisting the
organizational demands. Others, while reporting seemingly identical conflicts and pressures, decided to
voice their objections and found ways – sometimes very creative ways – to resolve the conflicts. These
students did not appear to be more articulate or more intelligent. Their essays did not express a greater
sense of discomfort than the essays of those who did not voice or act on their values. They did, however,
6 “Where will they Lead?” An Aspen Institute Business & Society Program study: www.AspenCBE.org
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
5
make the decision to say something. Sometimes they spoke persuasively; sometimes they appeared to be
a bit naïve or clumsy. Some succeeded in changing the practice they addressed; others did not. But they
spoke up, and that put them on a different path. The question becomes: What enables the choice to speak
up?
The Aspen Institute study and the business school student stories bring to mind some research conducted
on Rescuers in World War II (individuals who risked their own safety to assist those threatened by the
Nazis), trying to identify the factors held in common by those who have been known to act with moral
courage in the face of danger. One of the key characteristics such folks tended to share was the
experience, earlier in their lives, of anticipating situations where their values would be challenged and
sharing out loud with a respected listener what they would do – a kind of pre-scripting.7
And thus the Giving Voice to Values initiative was born. The educational approach described here
provides managers and students of management with the opportunity to identify with someone who
knows what their values dictate in a particular situation – as opposed to someone who is wondering what
the right thing to do in a situation might be (as is often the case in ethics and values workshops and
seminars)—and then to script their response. In other words, this approach is post-decision-making.8 It is
not about analyzing what the right thing to do may be or whether to act on our values in the workplace;
it’s about starting from the assumption that we know what we want to do and then figuring out how we
might make that happen –and then practicing our voice.
Of course, many of the thorniest ethical problems in business today are not at all clear cut. However,
when all is said and done, even after we have decided what we want to do, acting on that choice is not
easy and the courage and quality of implementation can be as, or sometimes even more important, than
the quality of the choice.
This is not to say that finding “successful” resolutions to values conflicts is easy, or even always
possible. Rather this is simply to suggest that people do try; that it is important and worthwhile to try;
and that such resolutions are, in fact, sometimes possible. This is an important distinction – that is, the
difference between not knowing the answer to the question of how to implement our values and not
believing that there could be such an answer. This is often an unspoken struggle within managers, as
well as business educators. In fact, one of the reasons why faculty and managers are sometimes
uncomfortable with explicit discussions of the ethical implications of managerial actions may well be
because they are not necessarily convinced that it is, in fact, possible to voice our values successfully.
And this suggests a need to pay attention to both the approaches that enable us to voice our values
successfully, as well as our very definition of “success” in these instances.
Accordingly, this note looks at ways to learn from business practitioners who have already acted on their
values. Although informed by research, this is a practical approach. This note does not suggest that the
identified strategies always work, or even prove that a particular response is the “right” one. Rather it
7 Perry London, “The Rescuers: Motivational Hypotheses about Christians who saved Jews from the Nazis,” in J. Macaulay
and L. Berkowitz, eds., Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social Psychological Studies of Some Antecedents and
Consequences (NY: Academic Press, 1970) and Douglas H. Huneke, The Moses of Rovno (NY: Dodd, Mead, 1985).
8 This phrase was coined by Carolyn Woo, Dean of the Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business, in her description of the
approach to values examined in this note.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
6
posits a laboratory where discussants – both students and current managers – can explicitly ask: “What if
you were going to act on your values? What would you say and do?”
These seemingly straightforward questions are often not posed – save for the final moments of a
discussion where the bulk of the time was spent in identifying the countervailing pressures– and they
can have real impact when they are. When addressed in depth, these questions take the discussion out of
the realm of “right and wrong” and into the realm of practice – a terrain where discussants, students and
business people alike, are often more comfortable, and a terrain which triggers that “can do” attitude that
seems to become peculiarly disabled when a question is framed as one of ethics and social
responsibility.
In the remainder of this note, we will discuss some lenses or “ways of thinking” about values in the
workplace that appear to enable managers to ask and answer the questions – “What if we were going to
act on our values? What would we say and do?” When we view values conflicts through these lenses,
our confidence and capacity to voice and act on our values can be enhanced.
First a Word about Values
Before we go further it will be useful to explain what we mean by “values” in this note. Obviously, this
is an over-determined word. When asked what our values are, many people, especially businesspeople,
may include qualities like “innovation” or “creativity” or any number of other useful and important
characteristics. For the purpose of this note, however, we are talking about values that most people
would agree have an ethical dimension to them.
In addition, when asked to list our “core” values, we will certainly encounter disagreements about the
items on the list and their relative priorities. However, much research has been done over time and
across cultures, and although differences do surface, what is important to remember here is that there is
a great deal of commonality among a list of values that most individuals identify as central…and that
this shared list is rather short.9
For example, in Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are Put to the Test, Rushworth
Kidder describes the extensive areas of consensus on core values he finds in his cross-cultural surveys,
as well as in other research, pointing to psychologist Martin Seligman’s work:
There is astonishing convergence across the millennia and across cultures about
virtue and strength…Confucius, Aristotle, Aquinas, the Bushido Samurai Code,
the Bhagavad-Gita, and other venerable traditions disagree on the details, but all
of these codes include six core virtues.10
The virtues Seligman refers to are: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, transcendence.11
9 Rushworth M. Kidder, Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are Put To the Test (New York: William
Morrow, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2005), pp. 39-76.
10 Martin E. P. Seligman, Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting
Fulfillment (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), p.11.
11
See http://www.viastrengths.org/index.aspx?ContentID=44
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
7
Drawing from his own research, Kidder identifies a similar, more simply put, list of five widely shared
values: honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness and compassion.12
Similarly, in the development of their Integrative Social Contracts Theory, Thomas Donaldson and
Thomas W. Dunfee posit a set of hypernorms that can guide conflict resolution in economic activities
when working across diverse groups. They argue that
…global macrosocial contractors…would not necessarily deny the existence of a
thin universal morality, nor of principles so fundamental that, by definition, they
serve to evaluate lower-order norms. Defined in this way and reaching to the root
of what is ethical for humanity, precepts we choose to call “Hypernorms” should
be discernible in a convergence of religious, political, and philosophical thought,
or at least it is a reasonable hope that we should discern such a convergence. The
concept of a hypernorm is used to establish the boundaries of moral free space,
and individual hypernorms would limit the imposition of ethical obligations
within a given microsocial community. We call such principles “hypernorms”
because they represent norms by which all others are to be judged.13
Although we may quibble around the edges, knowing that, in general, a certain brief list of values are
widely shared gives us both a useful (because of its commonality) and manageable (because of its
brevity) foundation to which we can appeal when trying to address values conflicts in the workplace.
Thus, recognizing that our differences or disagreements about values, though real, do not preclude the
development and pursuit of shared goals14 is a useful primary position to adopt when we think about
how to voice and act on those values.
Perhaps an illustration would be helpful here. Near the end of a recent lecture and discussion with a
group of graduate business school students and business leaders, one MBA student spoke up. Her
comment went something like this: “I am from India and the norms and practices of business there are
different. It is often impossible to voice and act on one’s values because certain less than honest or
ethical practices are just accepted.”
She went on to talk about a time when she herself had purchased a computer that was defective and how
offended she was by this violation of business integrity. And she concluded her remarks by saying that
given the futility of trying to enact her values in the workplace in her home country she, instead, focused
her energy on working with a non-profit organization that addressed some of the social problems in her
community.
The explicit point she was making was that acting on our values is context-specific, particularly across
cultures. The implicit point was a sort of justification of her own choice not to try to fight the particular
system she had faced prior to coming to school. There seemed an inherent contradiction here. On the
one hand, she was saying she had no choice, but on the other, she felt the need to justify the choice she
had made.
12 Kidder, p. 47.
13 Thomas Donaldson and Thomas W. Dunfee, Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999), pp. 43-44.
14 Mary C. Gentile, “Ways of Thinking About and Across Difference,” Harvard Business School #9-395-117, 1995, p. 13.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
8
In trying to respond to the woman’s comments, it seemed important to find a way to recognize and
strengthen her view of herself as, in fact, having a choice. But this must be done without locking her into
a perception of herself as unethical. Obviously it is tricky to do both. On the one hand, reinforcing a
perception of herself as unethical might lead her to feel disempowered when confronting future
conflicts; on the other hand simply reassuring her that she really had no choice after all could fuel the
kind of self-justifying biases that can make it easier to overlook or rationalize future failures to act.
However, the seeds of a response were embedded in this woman’s own comments. She clearly did, in
fact, experience the less than honest business dealings she described as a values conflict. On a personal
level, she felt offended and cheated by the computer dealer; on a more general level, she acknowledged
that the behaviors of some businesses at home were less than ethical. So our first response to her
comments was simply to reflect back to her that she obviously was a person with active values.
Second, we suggested that the fact that she did experience values conflicts, at a minimum, complicated
her assertion that the norms and business context in India were less than ethical. That is, without
denying or oversimplifying contextual differences, she herself had demonstrated that such
generalizations are not universal.
Third, once her cultural assumptions had been thus complicated, it was helpful to point out that such
contextual pressures to behave unethically are not unique to India. In fact, most folks confronting
difficult values conflicts in the workplace are able to point to a story of explicit or implicit
organizational or cultural norms that are less than ethical. This comment is not shared with the intent to
negate the power of such norms but, rather, with the intent to reveal that they are not unique to one
culture, industry or function, and that, in fact, people sometimes find ways to counter them.
Fourth, her story about her work with a community non-profit demonstrates that she is the kind of
person who can and does act on her values. The trick was to reflect this reality back to her in a way that
suggested that she had effectively found ways to counter widespread social challenges in one part of her
life, thereby raising the possibility of seeing herself as the kind of person who might do so in other areas.
By responding in this way, rather than pushing the woman into an argument where her stance would
likely be a self-defeating assertion of the impossibility of acting on her values, the group invited her to
see herself as a person of values; to reflect on the ways she had acted on her values in the past; and to
recognize that if she feels and acts in these ways, there may be others in her business context at home
who would as well.
Clearly this discussion did not resolve the question of exactly what she could or would do in the future
when she encountered such values conflicts in the workplace, but she left the discussion engaged and
positive. Her demeanor had changed and she was engaged in an external (and hopefully also internal)
dialogue about options. Her conflicts became “speakable” in a different way. One of the keys to this reframing of her self-image and her view of her business context was the recognition of some values that
she and, presumably, others in her business experience might share.
Choice
Earlier we asked, “Is there free will in business?” In the context of this note, the most useful answer is
that free will is a matter of free will. That is, as we saw in the essays written by MBA students, when
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
9
encountering similar challenges some folks believed and acted as if they had a choice, and others did
not. Of course, the circumstances in any two situations are never entirely equivalent, but the fact is that,
even in those examples where the students reported that they did voice and act on their values, they had
colleagues in those same organizations that did not. That is, there were people in the same organization
and situation who were making different choices about speaking up.
Our intent here is not to conclude that those who spoke up were necessarily better, braver or more
competent people than those who did not. Rather, we want to consider these questions:
 Do we think that those individuals who told stories of speaking and acting on their values may have
ever encountered a values conflict where they did not do so?
 Do we think that those individuals, who told stories of not speaking up, ever had spoken or acted on
their values in a different situation?
 Better yet, can we think of times when we ourselves have acted on our values, as well as times when
we have not?
The answer to each of these questions, we suspect, will be “yes.” And this is probably the strongest
evidence we can bring to bear on this subject of choice — we know we have choice because we
ourselves have exercised it.
We have noticed an interesting phenomenon in our interviews with managers and students. When asked
to talk about a time when they experienced a values conflict in the workplace and how they handled it,
they engage in some interesting self-reflection. The level of self-examination possible when one begins
from the premise that someone has acted on their values is striking. This starting point seems to free
them up to raise the counter-examples– perhaps because they feel less defensive.
One such interviewee said he wanted to preface his example of a time when he voiced his values by
sharing several times when he had not. The process of preparing to tell his “success” story had triggered
a comparative analysis, and he began to talk about what enabled him in one situation and what disabled
him in others.
Recognizing the fact that we are all capable of speaking and acting on our values, as well as the fact that
we have not always done so, is both empowering and enlightening. It is the perhaps the most important
of the “ways of thinking” about values in the workplace we want to share in this note. It opens a path to
self-reflection and self-knowledge, as well as situational analysis, that we may otherwise short circuit.
And looking through this particular lens of choice, we will see that each of the other “ways of thinking”
and tools discussed here are only helpful once we have chosen to use them in the service of our values.
In fact, many of the tools we will discuss, such as re-framing decisions, can be value-neutral: that is,
they can be used by anyone to pursue any goal. It is our choice to try to answer the question, “How can I
speak and act on my values in this situation?” that is the essential first step.
The recognition that we can – and do – choose to speak and act on our values, as well as sometimes
choose not to, allows us to see that our failure to do so in some situations does not cast us as unethical
for all time, nor does our success at doing so in other situations relieve us from the necessity to continue
to challenge ourselves and remain vigilant. It can be dangerous – and in our experience, it is always
untrue – to define ourselves as either always ethical or as always unethical. The first may feed selfjustifying bias and the latter may discourage sincere effort.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
10
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains: “We value choice and put ourselves in situations of choice,
even though choice often undercuts our happiness.”15 Choice can threaten our happiness simply because
it places not only greater opportunities before us, but also greater challenges and potential obligations.
So it becomes important to recognize our capacity for choice as well as change. That is, each situation
allows us the opportunity to re-define ourselves. But it is also helpful to recognize that voicing our
values can become a muscle or a habit. The more we do it, the more we will do it. In our interviews, we
found that some individuals had exercised that muscle often enough that it became part of their selfdefinition. Their challenge then became one of strategy and implementation rather than decision-making
– a challenge that was less emotionally taxing and which leads us to our next “way of thinking” about
values in the workplace.
The Normalization of Values Conflicts
Despite the fact that so many respondents to the Aspen student attitude survey expected to encounter
values conflicts in the workplace, and that MBA candidates appear to have no problem generating
examples of such conflicts, our interviews and observations suggest that often we do not see ethical or
moral dilemmas as a true part of doing business. We think of ourselves as just working along, minding
our own business, when all of a sudden a values conflict inserts itself into the flow of our lives. It
threatens to derail us. It feels as if it is somehow getting in the way of our regular work. It feels unusual,
extraordinary, and different. It’s an intrusion into the way things ought to be. We often feel or say, “I
never expected to encounter this,” even when the dilemma we are facing is a classic business ethics
situation.
Framing the situation in this way can sometimes have a disabling effect. We feel as if we have stepped
out of our competent, action-oriented work identities and a more personal part of ourselves is somehow
being engaged. This kind of compartmentalization can mean that even if we typically have no problem
articulating a contrarian position on a business decision, we may silence ourselves when it comes to
ethical arguments.
Precisely because the ethical dilemma is perceived as something separate and apart from business-asusual, we are more likely to think in terms of just getting through this challenge so we can get back to
business. Framing the challenge as “exceptional” can mean that we view our actions as not really
expressions of who we are. Instead, they are aberrations that we just need to “get past” somehow.
One interviewee expressed it this way: “In retrospect, this problem really wasn’t that overwhelming
once I figured out what I wanted to do. But before I had done that, I lied – instinctively I lied – hoping
that it just wouldn’t happen again. Now I realize such choices are an inevitable part of our business
journey and it doesn’t seem so huge.”16 Note that this interviewee is not saying that violating his values
is normal; rather, he is saying that facing values conflicts is inevitable.
15 Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, (New York: Basic Books, 2006),
page 102.
16 These ideas and this quotation are taken from “Get Aggressive About Passivity,” by Judith Samuelson and Mary Gentile,
Harvard Business Review, November 2005, Reprint F0511A.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
11
If we approach our business careers with the expectation that we will face values conflicts and have
anticipated some of the most common types of value conflict in our intended industry and functional
area, not only can we minimize the disabling effect of surprise, but also will likely find ourselves
framing attempts to speak about these issues in a less alarmist or emotional manner and more as a matter
of course. Such an approach can have the effect of normalizing and defusing the topic for ourselves, as
well as for the individuals with whom we hope to discuss them.
Similarly, it is useful to become familiar, if not comfortable, with the inevitable risks that come with
values conflicts: that is, to normalize the stakes. We all recognize that any business decision – any life
decision – comes with the risk that it will not turn out as we hope. Our choices come with no guarantees,
and that is also true of our choice to voice and act on our values.
In a Harvard Business Review interview, Franco Bernabe, CEO of Eni, a major energy-focused
industrial group in Italy, comments on the lessons of leadership that guided him through not only a
dramatic corporate transformation and turn-around but also a recovery from widespread corruption and
public scandal. In particular, he describes the process of normalizing the risks that accompany our
choice to respond to values conflicts:
Leadership requires a willingness to take risks. I took many big risks. But I had
two psychological parachutes. First, I was young enough that being fired for
pursuing the right ideas wouldn’t hurt me—it would be to my credit. I could have
worked somewhere else. Second, I never used the paraphernalia of the position.
Being the chief executive of a company like Eni, and one of the top managers in
the country, you have offered to you a number of perks that can make your life
different. I didn’t take them. …If I had lost my job and gone back to something
more subdued and less glamorous – well, it wouldn’t have changed my life. So
taking risks didn’t seem that frightening to me. I didn’t have anything to lose.17
Bernabe’s two “parachutes” bear a bit more examination. The first one – that he could weather being
fired because he was young enough to find another job – is particularly interesting because it runs
counter to one of the usual reasons given for not acting on one’s values: Often people say that they could
not act on their values because they were too young, too junior in the organization, and that they would
have to wait until they were in charge to actually make a difference. Bernabe takes this argument and
turns it on its head. This is an example of the “reasons and rationalizations” for failing to address values
conflicts in the workplace – and the kind of re-framing that enables us to counter them – which we will
address in more depth later in this note.
His second parachute – the idea that he did not allow himself to become attached to the perks of the job
– is more familiar. For example, at the end of the case study “Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computer,
Inc. (A),” as the case protagonist considers taking a controversial stand, she reflects upon some advice
she had received from a business school professor six years previously:
17 “Leadership When There Is No One to Ask: An Interview with Eni’s Franco Bernabe” by Linda Hill and Suzy Wetlaufer,
Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998, Reprint 98402, pp. 93-94.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
12
He had told students that the first thing to do after graduating was to start pulling
together their “go-to-hell money.” Dubinsky took that to mean that she should
never put herself in a situation from which she could not walk away.18
By anticipating or normalizing the idea that we will have to take risks – even career-threatening ones –
in service of our values at some point in our work lives, we expand our vision of what degree of freedom
we have in our decision-making. The explicit decision to prepare for that eventuality – whether that
means saving some amount of “go-to-hell money” or foregoing certain lifestyle perks or, as we will
discuss later, understanding our own particular risk profile19 – again makes this kind of choice both
easier to imagine and more “practical” to enact. This is not to say that such a choice will ever be painless
but, rather, that looking at such choices in this way – as normal and survivable – makes them seem
possible.
Finally, viewing values conflicts in the workplace as a normal and expected part of our professional
lives enables us to more easily understand, identify with and communicate with those who place us in
these challenging situations. If values conflicts are a normal part of our work lives, then those who
present these conflicts don’t have to be seen as villains. They may well be just like us. Commenting on
Roy Baumeister’s research on evil, Jonathan Haidt explains that:
When taking the perpetrator’s perspective, he [Baumeister] found that people who
do things we see as evil….rarely think they are doing anything wrong. They
almost always see themselves as responding to attacks and provocations in ways
that are justified. They often think that they themselves are victims.20
Although this research focused on human cruelty and aggression rather than the kinds of workplace
transgressions we discuss in this note, it usefully suggests that we benefit from recognizing not only our
own tendency toward self-justification, but also the concomitant tendency to view others as entirely
wrong. Diminishing the perceived distance between us and the individual or individuals who present us
with a values conflict can make voicing our concerns less daunting, because we can more easily find
some common ground.
Definition of Purpose
Another way of thinking about values in the workplace has to do with our definition of professional
purpose. The way we define our sense of professional or career purpose can help facilitate the process of
normalizing ethical questions described above. If we define our professional purpose explicitly and
broadly, we will have an easier time seeing values conflicts as an expected part of doing business, with
costs and benefits that do not seem unusual or especially daunting in comparison with any other business
challenge.
18 “Donna Dubinksy and Apple Computer, Inc. (A)” , by Mary Gentile under the supervision of Professor Todd D. Jick,
Harvard Business School Case Study # 9-486-083, 1986, p. 12
19 See p. 14 of this note, “Self-Knowledge.”
20 Haidt, p.74.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
13
For example, if we think of our purpose as doing well, pleasing our bosses, making a good living (or
even a great living), then when we face values conflicts in the workplace, we will see our degrees of
freedom narrowed by the desire to please those very individuals who may be presenting us with the
values conflict. They are the ones who give us performance reviews and raises, or with whom we need
to cooperate in order to accomplish our goals, or to whom we need to make the sale to meet a quota. We
may feel we have little choice but to do what they ask.
Of course, the pursuit of any goal – even a narrowly defined goal – can still be guided and disciplined by
a set of commitments and rules. Even if we define our purpose narrowly as “doing well financially,” we
can still choose to be guided by a set of values and principles that determine how we feel comfortable
and justified in doing so, but they may feel more like constraints within which we must operate rather
than goals to which we aspire.
If, however, we think of our purpose in a broader sense as building and being part of a company that is a
respected corporate citizen – for example, providing valuable products or services to consumers,
creating good jobs in a healthy work environment, building a firm that investors can trust to report
honestly on its performance – then we will see that we have a broader span of operation when we
confront values conflicts. We will have a wider set of positive principles and goals to which we can refer
and by which we can guide our behavior.
Addressing this topic of purpose in a broader sense, management thinker Charles Handy poses the
question, “What’s a business for?” He responds:
Both sides of the Atlantic would agree that there is, first, a clear and important
need to meet the expectations of a company’s theoretical owners: the
shareholders. It would, however, be more accurate to call most of them investors,
perhaps even gamblers…Nevertheless, if management fails to meet their financial
hopes, the share price will fall, exposing the company to unwanted predators and
making it more difficult to raise new finance. But to turn shareholders’ needs into
a purpose is to be guilty of a logical confusion, to mistake a necessary condition
for a sufficient one. We need to eat to live; food is a necessary condition of life.
But if we lived mainly to eat, making food a sufficient or sole purpose of life, we
would become gross. The purpose of business is not to make a profit, full stop. It
is to make a profit so that the business can do something more or better.21
Some of us may argue that “making a profit” is a sufficient goal for business and that values come into
play only as the “rules” by which we need to play. This is akin to the “rules as constraints” perspective
described above. The point here is not to discredit such an approach – financial success, honestly
achieved, is nothing to sneeze at – but rather to suggest that if we define our purpose more broadly, it
may become easier to find ways to voice and act on our values. And in our effort to voice and act on our
values, we may find it more empowering to appeal to a set of positive goals rather than only to a set of
moral constraints. In short, we will see that more things matter to us than simply our next promotion and
that this is possibly true for other people in the workplace as well – not necessarily everyone but
sometimes enough.
21 Charles Handy, “What’s a Business For?” Harvard Business Review, December 2002, Reprint #R0212C, p. 5.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
14
Economist Robert Frank has studied behavioral tendencies and he writes about this effort to bring out
the best in our work colleagues in the context of fair trading, stating: “I now believe that the search for a
reliable trading partner is not a quest to identify an indiscriminately trustworthy individual, but rather a
process of creating conditions that make us more likely to elicit cooperative tendencies in one
another.”22 That is, we are not necessarily looking for that individual who will always be fair, but rather,
trying to create or find conditions that will make it likely that more of us will be so. Defining and
sharing a professional purpose broad enough to encompass and positively express our values can be one
way to create such conditions.
For instance, management scholar Joel Brockner, also writing about ways to encourage fairness in the
workplace, provides examples of ways to create conducive conditions. As Brockner explains, “giving
workforces outcome-only directives” — for example, the purpose is to win at any cost — “can be
disastrous.” He explains that, on the contrary, “[b]y modeling process fairness, senior management does
more than communicate organizational values; it also sends a message about ‘the art of the possible.’
People are more likely to try to tackle difficult challenges when they see others whom they respect doing
so.”23 We would argue that this managerial example broadens the implicit organizational purpose to
include means as well as ends.
Of course, this example begs the question of what we can do when it is precisely the senior managers
who are presenting us with a value conflict. However, there are more sources of “respect” than merely
rank and power. Later in this note we will talk about some of the tools that might help us tap into them,
hopefully engaging the commitment that Brockner describes, even when we are not senior management.
For now, it is important to recognize that this broader definition of purpose does not make values
conflicts simple. In fact, it may seem to complicate our lives at times because it will require us to see
choices where we may have preferred to simply defer to the “authority” of our superiors in the
organization. On the other hand, this broader definition of purpose allows us to dignify our role in the
organization at any level. We can see ourselves as part of something respectable and valuable, from
entry level employee to CEO.
It also dignifies the values conflicts themselves. These are not seamy little dilemmas that we squirm
over quietly and try to forget, rationalizing that they are simply the unfortunate “price we must pay” to
survive in a particular firm or industry. Instead, they become opportunities to take a step towards
building or preserving an organization we can be proud of. Instead of normalizing the loss of our values,
we can normalize the fact that we will be called upon to respond to their challenge.
Self-Knowledge, Self-Image and Alignment
One of the most powerful lenses through which to view values in the workplace is that of selfknowledge and self-image. In interviews with managers at all levels of the firm, a significant enabler of
values-based action is often reported to be the clarity, commitment and courage that are born of acting
22 Robert H. Frank, What Price the Moral High Ground? Ethical Dilemmas in Competitive Environments. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004, p. 13.
23 Joel Brockner, “Why It’s So Hard to Be Fair,” Harvard Business Review, March 2006, Reprint #R0603H, p. 8 and 7.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
15
from our true center, finding alignment between who we are and what we say and do. Some people say
they are able to voice and act on their values because they have always had a strong sense of right and
wrong and a need to act on this conviction. Psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut describes this kind of moral
courage as a person’s commitment to “shape the pattern of his life – his thoughts, deeds, and attitudes –
in accordance with the design of his nuclear self.”24
However, not everyone sees themselves this way. Let’s borrow taxonomy from Gregory Dees and Peter
Crampton’s discussion of ethical negotiations.25 They suggest that we might categorize ourselves as
“idealists” (those who attempt to act on their moral ideals, no matter what); as “pragmatists” (those who
attempt to both act in the service of their own material welfare as well as upon their moral ideas); or as
“opportunists” (those who are driven exclusively by their own material welfare). Dees and Crampton
point out that most people fall into more than one of these categories depending on the issue, but in our
experience with business students and practitioners, the largest group usually self-identify as
“pragmatists.” They want to act on their values but do not wish to place themselves at a “systematic
disadvantage” by doing so.26 This seems a profoundly hopeful observation, because it suggests that there
are many who would voice and act on their values, if they believed they had a reasonable chance of
effectiveness.
So given the aforementioned strength and energy derived from acting in a way that aligns with our core
self, and operating from the above assumption that not everyone will identify themselves as “idealists,”
it seems we can enhance our willingness and ability to voice and act on our values by finding a way to
view ourselves – by writing a self-story, if you will – that integrates acting on our values with our sense
of who we truly are. If we see ourselves as “pragmatists,” for example, let’s find a way to view voicing
our values as pragmatic.
Let’s look at an example. We often assume that voicing and acting on our values involves an act of
courage. Interestingly, some managers report that their ability to voice their values was driven more by
fear than courage. Their fear of violating a particular code or of incurring some external punishment
outweighed the fear of bucking the crowd or of refusing their boss’s direction.
In one sense, this seems obvious, but it illuminates a relevant debate. There are some companies and
business schools that approach their ethics and compliance with a sort of “scared straight” model. They
will hire someone who served time for a white collar offense to lecture on how easy it is to start down
that “slippery slope” and how terrible the consequences are. We have always been skeptical of such
efforts, believing it is more effective to tap into people’s positive desires to excel (in this case, at
implementing their values), than to feed their fears of punishment.
However, listening to an extraordinarily self-reflective and candid woman describe her ability to voice
her values as a result of being risk averse and fear-driven gave us pause. An analyst in a leading
investment bank, she was asked by a close friend to share some proprietary research: “I experienced his
24 Kidder, p. 82.
25 Gregory Dees and Peter Crampton, “Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a Theory of Morality in Practice”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, April 1991, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 146 and 164.
26 Note that this does not mean that they would never be willing to pay a price for acting on their values. See for example, Uri
Gneezy, “Deception: The Role of Consequences,” The American Economic Review, March 2005, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 384—
394.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
16
request as scary and wrong, but he cajoled, saying, ‘It’s only me. No one will ever know.’ After I
refused, he said, ‘I’ve never seen you that firm with anyone. I guess you’ve sold your soul to that
company.’” Later the analyst commented, “I hate to say no to anyone and I’m basically a nonconfrontational person, but I guess I belong to this place [her investment bank employer] for a while and
want to be loyal.”
This last comment about “belonging” to her employer may elicit a gasp from readers but then the analyst
proceeded to share other instances when she had raised questions within her firm. These decisions
collectively illustrated that for her, fear and loyalty actually provided her with the strength to speak out,
both inside and outside the organization. Fear and loyalty raised her expectations and her standards for
the firm, as well as for herself.
It appears that one person’s fear is another’s courage and that it can be useful to frame the mindsets and
predispositions for ethical action as explicitly multiple. For example, if some individuals are convinced
they are fearful, maybe helping them find a way to consciously use that fear to serve a purpose they
value would be more effective than preaching courage to them.
In conversations with managers who have acted on their values in the workplace, again and again people
described their ability to voice their values as deriving from some personal identity traits; whether it was
their personal confidence, their tendency to be contrarian, their risk-averse nature, their risk-taking
nature, their need for clarity, and so on. What is interesting is that the trait enabling one individual may
be the opposite of the trait that enables another.
It becomes important for us to create our own narrative about who we are and how being this person
enables us to act on our values, as well as what particular risks we face due to this identity. We can
construct a “personal values profile,” focused not only on what our values are but on our particular
strengths and risk factors when it comes to acting on those values. We can then place a customized
network of individuals and resources in place to serve our intention to act on our values.
For example, Professor Linda Hill of the Harvard Business School uses self-assessment in her
Leadership curriculum not merely as a tool to identify areas for personal growth, but also as a way to
clarify where one may need to build in checks and balances. To illustrate, if we know that we tend to
defer to authority, we might seek out a respected contrarian as an advisor on major decisions. This
approach is built upon the normalizing of personal challenges, just as the discussion above was built
upon the normalizing of ethical challenges.
Some key self-assessment questions to consider include:
 Questions of Purpose (discussed in the previous section of this note): What are your personal
goals? Your professional goals? How do you define your impact as a/n: auditor, investor, manager,
product developer, marketer, senior executive, etc.? What do you hope to accomplish? What will
make your professional life worthwhile? And so on.
 Questions of Risk: What is your risk profile? Are you a risk-taker, or are you risk-averse? What are
the greatest risks you face in your line of work? Are they personal (livelihood, deportation, legal
punishment, etc.); professional (harms to customers, employees, the firm, etc.); or societal (impact
on environment, profession, industry, nation, etc.)? What levels of risk can and can’t you live with?
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
17
 Questions of Personal Communication Style/Preference: Do you deal well with conflict, or are
you non-confrontational? Under what circumstances? Do you prefer communicating in-person, or in
writing? Do you think best from the gut and in-the-moment, or do you need to take time out to
reflect and craft your communications? Do you assert a position, or do you ask questions?
 Questions of Loyalty: Do you tend to feel the greatest loyalty to family, work colleagues, your
firm/employer, or other stakeholders, such as customers? Under what conditions and given what
stakes?
 Questions of Self-Image: Do you identify as shrewd or naïve? As idealistic or pragmatic? As a
learner or as a teacher? Etc.
Interestingly, there are few “right or wrong” answers to these questions, and individuals who describe
the experience of acting on their values will report many different and conflicting self-assessments.
Everyone has his or her own “self-story,” or is able to construct one. And one of the most promising
levers for enabling us to voice our values appears to be generating a “self-story” that allows us to find
ways to align what we think is “right” with who we already think we are. If I see myself as a bold
person, I can choose to frame acting on my values as courageous. Conversely, if in my heart I see myself
as a timid person – regardless of what I may say in job interviews or at cocktail parties – I can frame
acting on my values as an act of compliance. The point here is that the way we incorporate values
conflicts into our story can serve to enable, or disable, our ability to act on our values. It can allow us to
play to our strengths, or not. Creating this story is not just about self-knowledge; it is about the way we
choose to use that self-knowledge.
This is particularly important in light of research suggesting that most of us tend to be susceptible to
self-justifying biases or finding ways to view our decisions as positively motivated, even when we
would be critical of someone else who made the same choices. By actively considering our personal
values profile and crafting a “self-story” that aligns our values, behaviors and self-image with the kind
of person who can make the hard choices and act on their values, we are anticipating those choices and
pre-scripting our interpretation.27
Of course, our personal identities are not the only factors contributing to our ability, or inability, to act
on what we think is right in times of conflict. As noted by Robert Frank above, the conditions in which
we operate influence our behavior powerfully, both in terms of what we believe is possible to do (e.g.,
Do we think we have any influence in a particular situation?) and in terms of what we actually come to
believe about the rightness or wrongness of a particular choice (e.g., Was our initial values-based
reaction misguided?). But, again, taking control of the creation of our own self-story can enable us to
anticipate some of the organizational and social pressures we are likely to encounter.
Voice
Earlier in this note, we talked about a series of essays written by MBA students where they described a
time when their personal values conflicted with what they were asked to do in the workplace. We noted
that despite the fact that many of the situations appeared to be quite similar, some students had found
ways to voice and act on their values within the organization, while others did not. The repertoire of
27 “Teaching Ethics, Heuristics, and Biases” by Robert Prentice, Journal of Business Ethics Education 1(1) 2004, pp. 57-74.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
18
strategies adopted by those who chose to act inside the organization (as opposed to acting outside the
organization, by external whistle-blowing or by leaving) fell into some recognizable categories: looking
for a win/win solution; changing the boss’s mind through persuasion and logic; going over the boss’s
head within the organization; building coalitions of like-minded employees; and so on. But the pivotal
moment was deciding to speak.
We also noted that there are many different ways to speak, and that one of the most valuable approaches
to voicing our values lies in recognizing that fact. When we confront an ethical conflict, we often tend to
think that our choices are restricted: we can either stand up and declare our opposition to the offending
action, or we can remain mute. In fact, however, it is this stark framing of the options that can result in
both greater silence and a less effective voice.
Thus it becomes important to understand:
 That there are many different ways to express our values, and some may work better in certain
circumstances than others;
 That we, ourselves, may be more skillful at, or simply more likely to use, one approach over another,
and so our ability to see a way to use that particular approach may be the most important
determining factor as to whether or not we speak;
 That some organizational contexts/conditions (and some types of leaders) will have a strong impact
on our own and others’ likelihood of expressing values;
 That there are things we can do to make it more likely that we will voice our values and that that we
will do so effectively: namely, practice and coaching.
The first observation – that there are many different ways to express our values and that some may work
better in certain circumstances than others – suggests that voicing our values is, to some extent, a
learnable skill. As we examine our own experiences and those of others, and as we review research on
persuasion, negotiation and influence, we will see that there are many tools and approaches we might
use (e.g., assertion, questioning, researching and providing new data, persuasion, negotiation, leading by
example, identifying allies, etc.). The point here is that just because we are addressing a question of
values and ethics does not mean that we need to preach. Often, the very fact that a situation has an
ethical component to it leads us to feel that we must gear ourselves up to be saints or even martyrs; in
reality, we often just need to be competent and skillful. We can approach the communication challenge
with the same analytical and personal capabilities that we would use in any other situation, whether it is
a salary negotiation or an effort to persuade our colleagues to use a new software application. And as
with other communication challenges, we will want to consider the needs and desires and emotional
investments of the individuals to whom we are speaking, as opposed to focusing exclusively on our own.
Re-framing “voice” as “dialogue,” which includes a goodly dollop of “listening,” is another important
piece of the recipe.
The second observation – that we ourselves may be more skillful at, or simply more likely to choose one
approach over another – may seem to contradict the first. However, it is really simply an extension of it.
If our understanding of our audience’s needs, desires and perspectives suggests that we approach them
one-on-one, as opposed to in a group setting, we may still do so. However, when we do, we will want to
use the communication style with which we are most skilled and comfortable. For example, if our most
effective style of communication is story-telling and the use of metaphor, we would likely want to play
to our strengths, whether the topic is a moral conflict or not. Or, if we are uncomfortable with
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
19
confrontation, we may choose to raise our objections through a line of careful questioning rather than
assertion. Even if we are not convinced that our personal style will be most effective in a particular
situation, we are most likely to speak if we start from the strengths we have, rather than attempting to be
an entirely different type of person at a time of stress.
The third observation above – that some organizational contexts/conditions (in particular, some types of
leaders) will have a strong impact on our own and others’ likelihood of expressing our values – is fairly
obvious. Much research has been done to examine the impact of organizational systems and policies
(incentive systems, communication mechanisms, hierarchy, etc.) and leadership styles (authoritarian,
motivational, open or closed, etc.), as well as the impact of group pressures, on our likelihood to speak
and act against the prevailing winds in a particular situation.28
This research, as well as our own experience, is important for several reasons. First, it identifies the cost
of suppressing divergent voices in the workplace. It also points out the organizational mechanisms and
leadership strategies available to managers and executives who wish to encourage their employees to
voice their values in the workplace. Perhaps most importantly, it reveals that often we are unaware that
we have been influenced by our organizational context. We may come to believe that we agree with the
prevailing perspective without realizing that we have been influenced and without making a conscious
choice.
Unlike the previous observations and lenses discussed in this note, this last observation appears to
contradict the idea that we have a choice to voice and act on our values. In fact, the power and influence
of our context should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, we all know of times when we have seen
individuals resist these pressures; we probably can think of some times when we have done so ourselves.
In order to do so, however, we need to understand these contextual pressures; we need to be aware that
we, our colleagues and our supervisors may be influenced by them without always recognizing it, and so
must remain vigilant and self-aware. We also need to understand that resisting these pressures may
require strategy and skill as much as it requires moral conviction. For example, as Harvard professor
Amy Edmondson explains:
Much research on speaking up has focused on extra-role behavior, studying when people are
willing to speak up about aspects of the organization or work context that go beyond the
demands of their jobs…Yet, how people view their roles affects what is seen as discretionary
behaviour… (emphasis added)29
Edmondson’s observations that the implicit organizational definition of our role makes some topics less
“speakable,” leads us to wonder if we could we make an explicit effort to define our roles and our job
responsibilities in a way that makes those same topics essential items of discussion. In fact, simply
naming that some topics are not “speakable” begins to change the dynamic.
In another example, in their analysis of “Organizational Silence,” New York University scholars
Elizabeth Morrison and Frances Milliken suggest a number of organizational features that discourage
individuals from speaking up. This research, although discouraging in its finding that it is very difficult
28 Amy Edmondson, Robert Frank, Irving Janis, Frances Milliken, Elizabeth Morrison, etc.
29 Amy C. Edmonson, “Speaking Up in the Operating Room: How Team Leaders Promote Learning in Interdisciplinary
Action Teams,” Journal of Management Studies, 40:6 September 2003, p. 1420
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
20
to change such a culture, does suggest some mechanisms that the determined individual might employ to
find a voice. For example, Morrison and Milliken explain that “the more homogeneous the top
management team is with respect to functional training and experience, the more cohesive they are
likely to be and the more threatened they might be by the idea of dissent.”30 Although their work is
focused on organizational context rather than on individual action, we might infer that an explicit
attempt to test our ideas with a functionally diverse set of colleagues, and also perhaps to seek support
from such a group both inside and outside the organization, may help us resist some of the unconscious
influence. It may even help us find new ways of expressing our values that would not have occurred to
us if we remained more insular in our exchange.
The trick here is to learn from research that demonstrates how difficult it is to buck the organizational
system when it comes to speaking up in opposition to prevailing practices or to a supervisor’s directive,
but not to be entirely discouraged by it. The more we understand how we are influenced by our context,
the better our ability to see through it, resist it and perhaps influence others to do so.
The fourth and final observation about voice – that there are things we can do to make it more likely that
we will voice our values and that that we will do so effectively: namely, practice and coaching – is
supported by both research and common sense. Research tells us that when leaders talk openly about
how they have applied, or are learning to apply, their values and/or to talk about and listen to other
viewpoints, they become more approachable and their direct reports feel more able to do the same.
But we all know this anyway. The more we talk about something, the more comfortable we become
doing so. This is the kernel of truth we drew from the WWII Rescuers described earlier in this note:
those who acted on their values in times of crisis tended to share the experience of previewing and prescripting such challenges earlier in their lives. This observation suggests the value of practicing the
process of voicing our values as well as the value of simply voicing our commitment — saying out loud
who we are, who we want to be, who we are trying to be.
Reasons and Rationalizations
When we encounter values conflicts in the workplace, we often face barriers that appear in the form of
“reasons and rationalizations” for pursuing a particular course of action that can confound our best
attempts to fulfill our own sense of organizational and personal purpose. These are the objections you
hear from your colleagues when you try to point out an ethical problem in the way things are being
done. Sometimes you don’t even hear them because they are the unspoken assumptions – seeming
truisms – of the organization.
It is extremely difficult to make a strong argument against the “prevailing winds” if you feel you are in
the minority; or if you don’t feel you have the time to come up with a workable alternative; or if you
don’t want to take the chance to present a half-baked response. So this note is about creating a time and
space to be in the majority, with sufficient time to come up with a fully-baked and pre-tested response to
some of the most common challenges you are likely to face in your workplace. It’s about spending time
30 Elizabeth Morrison and Frances J. Milliken, “Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic
World,” Academy of Management Review, 2000 Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 711.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
21
with the rest of us who are reading and discussing this note (a “majority” in this moment) in order to
learn to unpack and reason through the most common and intractable arguments against ethical and
responsible management, and to practice generating responses to these common arguments.
Research tells us that our actions are often directed by our emotions and instincts more than our reason,
but that our peace of mind requires us to develop a way of making sense of these actions, even if it’s
after the fact.31 This seems consistent with the tendency, described above, to act in ways that seem most
comfortable or safe in our particular organizational context. And this observation might seem to mitigate
against the value or usefulness of cognitive or rational arguments for acting on our values in advance of
the actual situation. That is, what’s the point of coming up with a good argument if people are going to
go with the herd anyway?
But let’s just consider what it would mean if we agree with Dees and Crampton that the majority of us
would like to act on our values, as long as we could do so without feeling like we were putting ourselves
at a systematic disadvantage by doing so (that is, as long as we thought there may be some way to be
effective or succeed). Doesn’t it then seem possible that if we could practice developing and delivering
persuasive scripts for voicing our values before the fact, this might enable more of us to do so? We
might feel less defeated by the context if we thought we had a persuasive leg to stand upon. We all can
think of times when we felt a nagging doubt or discomfort with the way our team, our employer or even
our group of friends was behaving, but we felt silenced by our inability to think of a persuasive
argument to use to resist the trend. We may even have begun to question our own instincts because we
could not find a viable way to respond to the reasons and rationalizations around us.
This brings us to another way of thinking about values conflicts in the workplace: the analysis of reasons
and rationalizations for the behavior we question, and the development of persuasive arguments or
scripts for responding to them. This approach stems from the assumption that we want to do what we
think is right. But, to do so, we need to know how to communicate powerfully and persuasively in the
face of strong countervailing organizational or individual norms, reasons and rationalizations.
In order to develop this ability we want to consider the challenging situation carefully and answer
the following questions:
 What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? What are the reasons and rationalizations
you need to address?
 What’s at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with you? What’s at stake for you?
 What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
 What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to
address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context?
Interestingly, these questions are not asking us to apply ethical analysis. Rather they are all about
understanding the reasons and motivations – both rational and emotional, organizational and personal,
ethical and perhaps unethical – that guide the behavior and choices of those with whom we want to
communicate.
31 Haidt, p. 145-149.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
22
What can make this approach particularly useful for tackling values-based conflicts is that, after a while,
we will begin to recognize familiar categories of argument or reasons that we typically hear from
someone defending an ethically questionable behavior. And, similarly, there are some useful questions,
persuasive arguments and ways of framing our own role/purpose, and that of our organization, which
can help us respond persuasively to these frequent arguments.
Finally, the very act of recognizing and naming the argument can reduce its power because it is no
longer unconscious or assumed; we have made it discussable and even put it into play with equally, or
hopefully stronger, counter-arguments. Choice becomes possible, and that is what this note is all about.
Let’s take a moment to identify a few of the familiar categories of values conflict and categories of
rationalization or argument, as well as some possible types of response – by way of illustration. First of
all, there are a number of different ways to categorize both the types of values-based conflicts we
encounter as well as the typical arguments and responses we might hear. For example, values-based
conflicts might be classified by the generic type of dilemma; by the function or industry where we
would most likely encounter it; or by the type of argument or rationalization/reason we might face when
responding to it. Sometimes these categorization schemes may overlap. Nevertheless, they offer
different ways of enhancing our ability to recognize and respond to values-based conflicts.
If we want to talk about the generic type of dilemma, one example of such a categorization is described
by Rushworth Kidder and based on research at the Institute for Global Ethics. Kidder suggests that
despite their myriad manifestations, most ethical dilemmas fall into four categories or patterns:
 “Truth versus loyalty”
 “Individual versus community”
 “Short term versus long term”
 “Justice versus mercy”.32
You will note that Kidder is talking here about conflicting values, not values versus a lack of values.
Many times, we do face situations where our own values are conflicted or torn. But sometimes, the
conflict exists more in the way the dilemma is described or framed Thus, being prepared to recognize
the ways that the framing of a choice may call different values into play can be useful.
For example, a colleague in our company sales team may use an appeal to personal loyalty as a way to
persuade us to violate our commitment to integrity, when he or she asks us to keep silent about their
deceptive sales tactics. But recognizing the pattern in this values conflict – that is, “truth versus loyalty”
– may enable us to feel more prepared and certain of our response. The conflict moves from the
particular and the immediate moment into a broader, more general context, and we begin to see it more
clearly at this distance. Once the pattern is clear, we might recognize that our colleague is not showing
the same loyalty to us (by respecting our personal integrity) that he or she is asking from us.
Or we might consider the types of values conflicts that are most familiar in the particular functional area
or industry where we work. For example, there are some challenges more common in the world of
auditors than in the world of operations managers or sales professionals. Familiarizing ourselves with
32 Kidder, page 89.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
23
the challenge types most prevalent in our own work, as well as the common pressures, incentives and
disincentives that affect our choices, can help prepare us for both normalizing and effectively
responding to these challenges. It is particularly useful to pay attention to information about the
consequences of different choices and, in particular, to any available examples of individuals who
effectively voiced and acted on their values in this type of situation. These will not always be easy to
find, but even one story can be powerful as it demonstrates that there can be options.
Finally, we might consider the categories of argument or rationalization that we often encounter in
values conflicts. Some of the most common arguments include:
 Expected or Standard Practice: “Everyone does this, so it’s really standard practice. It’s even
expected.”
 Materiality: “The impact of this action is not material. It doesn’t really hurt anyone.”
 Locus of Responsibility: “This is not my responsibility; I’m just following orders here.”
 Locus of Loyalty: “I know this isn’t quite fair to the customer but I don’t want to hurt my
reports/team/boss/company.”
As we begin to recognize these categories of argument, we will become more adept at drawing upon
responses to each of them. For example, the appeal to “expected or standard practice” is often an
exaggeration. If everyone actually were doing “it” (whatever “it” is), what would be the consequences
for business practice and customer trust? If the practice is really accepted, why are there so often laws,
rules and/or policies against it? Would you be comfortable if everyone knew you were doing this? Who
wouldn’t you want to know? And so on.
With regard to the “materiality” argument, it becomes important to recognize that determinations of
materiality are often ambiguous. Rather than being objective, they can depend on the method of
measurement being employed.33 Additionally, some practices are considered fraudulent, regardless of
their relative size; that is, some things can’t be just a little wrong.34
The question of “responsibility” is another well-considered topic in ethics literature, and numerous
guidelines have been developed for assessing whether or not we are required to act.35 The point here,
though, is that this argument is often used when we know we are uncomfortable with a decision or
action but are afraid of the consequences of voicing and acting upon that judgment. Therefore, the
individual using this argument has already acknowledged that they don’t like the situation, and this
provides an opening for further discussion.
Finally, as noted earlier, the question and definition of loyalty can be framed in multiple ways. For
example, are we “loyal” when we protect the financial bonus of our team this quarter or when we protect
their long-term reputation and productivity?
33 Mary C. Gentile, “Discussions about Ethics in the Accounting Classroom: Student Assumptions and Faculty Paradigms,”
Giving Voice to Values curriculum, www.GivingVoiceToValues.org
34 “One Off Decisions” case, Giving Voice to Values curriculum: www.GivingVoiceToValues.org
35 “Reporting” module, Giving Voice to Values curriculum: www.GivingVoiceToValues.org
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
24
In addition to these categories of rationalization or argument, we will begin to recognize patterns of
reasoning and levers that can be useful to understand in our efforts to voice our values. For example, our
choices in such conflicted situations can often be framed as “false dichotomies,” pitting idealism against
nihilism. One of the most stubborn underlying assumptions in rationalizations of ethically questionable
behavior is that a reasonable (and “pragmatic”) aversion to self-destructive behavior is a justification for
any behavior. To illustrate, some might cite an unforgiving market as the reason for all sorts of financial
reporting distortions and operating manipulations. If the market does not tolerate the trade-off of shortterm profits for long-term gain in one instance, then this becomes an excuse to abandon the attempt to
forge open, honest communications in any instance. This kind of false dichotomy – between
unquestioning moral idealism on the one hand and a suspension of all obligations on the other – is often
the subtext behind justifications for unethical behavior. However, it usually obscures a more complex
reality.
Recognizing and unpacking “false dichotomies” is just one common lever for responding to
frequently heard rationalizations. Other such levers include:
 Thinking in the long run as well as the short run.
 Considering the situation in terms of the group and the firm’s wider purpose, rather than in terms of
the immediate transaction alone. For example, what behavior enables them to serve their customers
best; to manage themselves most efficiently; to manage themselves in the most honest manner; to
align incentives of the firm, the sales team and the customers, etc.?
 Considering the assumed definition of “competitive advantage.” This definition sometimes seems
to follow the old joke about two lawyers pursued by a bear in the woods. One lawyer says to the
other, “We’ll never be able to outrun that bear,” and the other replies, “I don’t have to outrun that
bear; I just have to outrun you.” Implicit in this view of competitiveness is the assumption that the
point of business is conquest; narrowly defined as outrunning the competitors (whether they are
external or internal). This model often results in shortsighted, narrow conceptions of managerial
purpose. It can be valuable to suggest an alternative model for competitiveness, based upon overall
and long-term excellence, rather than merely “outrunning” the competition. This conception can also
allow for consideration of how we achieve results, as well as whether we do so.
 Positioning oneself as an agent of “continuous improvement” as opposed to the source of
complaint. For example, how can we improve this system of incentives and goals to maximize
performance while discouraging “gaming” the system?
 Positioning oneself as a source of actionable alternatives rather than “thou shalt not’s:”
 Pointing out addictive cycles that can cause greater and greater pressures and risks, leading to larger
and larger values conflicts.
 Considering who we need and can attract as an ally in our efforts.
 Considering the costs to each affected party and looking for ways to recognize and mitigate these
in order make our arguments more appealing.
 Assuming our audience members are pragmatists (as opposed to idealists or opportunists) and
looking for ways to make it feasible for them to do the “right thing.” This does not mean that they
will never pay a price for their choices (sometimes such choices do mean sacrifice, at least in the
short run), but it means that they will not feel as if they have been exploited for doing so. For
example, if we want to ask our group to forego inappropriate revenue recognition it might help them
to see that we are trying to address the problem at a systemic level, as well. After all, it is the
organizational incentives that can encourage such choices.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
25
 Assuming our audience members are pragmatists, we will need to counter the commonly held
assumption of unethical behavior: pragmatists often expect the lowest common denominator of
behavior from those around them. In order to motivate individuals to step beyond this lowest
common denominator, it is useful to share examples of effective managers who have made choices
based on their sense of responsibility.
The point in identifying and delineating these different categories of argument and rationalization, as
well as the categories of values dilemmas, is to help us recognize them when we encounter them; to
understand the ways of thinking that produce them; and to be practiced in responding to them.
Conclusion
This note offers a number of observations about how to think about and approach values-based conflicts
in the workplace, as well as a set of lenses or frameworks through which to view our own encounters
with such conflicts, as a way of expanding the degrees of freedom and competence we feel. However,
none of these observations or lenses will be useful unless we actively practice them. They do not make
voicing and acting on our values easy in the face of countervailing pressures. They simply expand the
sense of possibility. They help us answer the question: “What if I was to voice my values? How might I
do so?”
Most importantly, dedicating time to focusing on what we would say and do, and examining the
experiences of others who have voiced their values, can build the muscle and the instincts to do so.
Sometimes this determination to speak comes quickly; sometimes it follows much deliberation. But the
more we do it (and see others do it), the more we believe we can do it, and the more it becomes just one
more managerial and leadership activity.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
26
Ways of Thinking about Values
1. VALUES: Although we may quibble around the edges, knowing that, in general, a certain brief list
of values are widely shared gives us both a useful (because of its commonality) and manageable
(because of its brevity) foundation to which we can refer when trying to address values conflicts in
the workplace. Thus, recognizing that our differences or disagreements about values, though real, do
not preclude the development and pursuit of shared goals is a useful primary position to adopt when
we think about how to voice and act on those values.
2. CHOICE: Recognizing the fact that we are all capable of speaking and acting on our values, as
well as the fact that we have not always done so, is both empowering and enlightening.
3. NORMALIZATION OF VALUES CONFLICTS: If we approach our business careers with
the expectation that we will face values conflicts and having considered some of the most common
types of conflicts in our intended industry and functional area, we can minimize the disabling effect
that surprise can have. We will also likely find ourselves framing our attempts to speak about these
issues in a less emotional manner and more as a matter of course. Such an approach can have the
effect of not only normalizing and defusing the topic for ourselves but also for the individuals with
whom we hope to discuss them. Additionally, by anticipating or normalizing the idea that we will
have to take risks – even career-threatening ones – at some point in our work lives, we expand our
vision of what the degrees of freedom are in our decision-making.
4. DEFINITION OF PURPOSE: If we define our professional purpose explicitly and broadly
(inclusive of means as well as ends, for example, or as addressing impacts beyond short term
profitability), we have an easier time seeing values conflicts as an expected part of doing business,
with costs and benefits that do not seem unusual or especially daunting in comparison with other
business challenges.
5. SELF-KNOWLEDGE, SELF-IMAGE AND ALIGNMENT: Given the strength and energy
that derives from acting in a way that is in alignment with our core self, we can enhance our
willingness and ability to voice and act on our values by finding a way to view ourselves – by
writing a “self-story”, if you will – that integrates acting on our values with our sense of whom we
truly are. If we see ourselves as “pragmatists” for example, let us find a way to view voicing our
values as pragmatic.
6. VOICE: In order to make it more likely that we do speak up about values conflicts in the
workplace, it is important to recognize that there are many different ways to express our values (e.g.,
assertion, questioning, researching and providing new data, persuasion, negotiation, leading by
example, identifying allies); that some may work better in some circumstances than others; that we
may be more skillful or simply more likely to use one approach than another, and so our ability to
see a way to use that particular approach may be the most important determining factor as to
whether or not we speak; that some organizational contexts/conditions (and some sorts of leaders)
will have a strong impact on our own and others’ likelihood of expressing values; and that there are
things we can do to make it more likely that we will voice our values and that we will do so
effectively: namely, reflection, practice and coaching.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
27
7. REASONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS: When we encounter values conflicts in the
workplace, we often encounter barriers that appear in the form of “reasons and rationalizations” for
pursuing a particular course of action that can confound our best attempts to fulfill our own sense of
organizational and personal purpose. If we begin to recognize categories of argument or reasons that
we typically hear when someone is defending a behavior that feels ethically questionable, we will be
able to develop and practice some useful questions, persuasive arguments, and ways of framing our
own role/purpose, as well as that of our organization, which can help us respond persuasively to
these common arguments. Finally, the act of recognizing and naming the category of argument can
reduce its power because it is no longer unconscious or assumed; we have made it discussable and
even put it into play with equally or hopefully stronger counter-arguments. Choice then becomes
possible.
Last Revised: 03/01/2010