Giving Voice to Values II

Anonymous

Thu, 05/26/2011 - 02:59

Book Reviews

This is the second half of my look at Mary C. Gentile's 2010 book, Giving Voice to Values. 
 
Naming and Framing 
Framing is central to acting on one's values. So often ethics
matters have already, effectively, been framed (and justified) by an
organization.
There are accepted truisms (this is the way it's always been done) and
stories that everyone knows (the last time someone disagreed openly
with Joe, she was on the streets looking for a job before the week was
out).
Loyalty is given a narrow meaning, in terms of individuals and, often,
political parties. Appearances too have a special meaning, and it is
often very
different from the way the word is used in the government ethics
expression "an appearance of impropriety." 
 
Ethics matters can be reframed as a risk to avoid, whether it's a risk
to individuals, to the party, or to the local government. Some matters
that are seen as win-lose can be reframed as win-win. Truisms can be
reframed as debatable (e.g., if that's the way it's always been done,
why is it illegal?). Stories can be retold (the reason Jane lost her
job is that no one stood up for her, even though most people agreed
with her).

I like the way Gentile talks about reframing loyalty. We always assume
that loyalty is a one-way street. We're disloyal to our party
colleagues if we criticize the way they do things, but our party
colleagues are not disloyal to us if they make it very hard for us to
share our opinions with them. Loyalty can be reframed as a two-way
street, a form of mutual respect in which decisions are discussed and
there is no intimidation of those who disagree with the leaders' views
or with what is often simply assumed. 
 
Another type of framing the author raises is framing choices not only
in terms of potential negative
consequences avoided (e.g., losing one's position, going to prison),
but also in terms of positive benefits achieved. Even someone very
cynical can see that, in many situations, candidates seeking ethics
reform can win an election. It can be a matter of convincing people that you can have your cake and eat a healthier and
better-tasting cake, too. 
 
Gentile is also a big proponent of naming. For example, if you feel
there is a lot of <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/100" target="”_blank”">groupthink
</a>in
your organization, that is, unquestioning unanimity, you can ask about
a particular matter, Why have we all coalesced so quickly around this
decision, without making any counterarguments? 
 
The most important area where naming is important is rationalizations.
Gentile feels that their power can be reduced by naming them, "because
they are no longer unconsciously accepted or assumed, but
discussable, in play." She recognizes that there are common
rationalizations that keep cropping up and, if we think about them in
advance, we can develop responses to them, the same way we develop
responses to, say, someone who has a knee-jerk reaction to raising
taxes or cutting a favorite program. She also talks about false
dichotomies (e.g., naivete vs. toughness) and metaphors (e.g., the
game) that are often accepted without question, and she provides
responses to them, as well. 
 
Believing It Can Be Done 
A large part of Giving Voice to
Values
deals with how individuals can convince themselves that giving voice to
their values can actually work. 
 
First, it's important to know what "giving voice to values" entails. It
is not limited to speaking out, sharing one's feelings directly. It includes such
things as asking questions to get people thinking in new
ways about a situation; making sure certain information is given to
decision-makers so, for example, they can see the potential impacts of
their
decisions; acting behind the
scenes, convincing those in a better position to raise an issue;
and finding another, more ethically acceptable way to accomplish an
assigned task. Like anything a government official does, there are many
ways to accomplish a goal, and they depend on many considerations,
especially the individuals involved. 
 
Gentile suggests that individuals start out treating the idea of giving
voice to values as a thought experiment. She lists a number of
assumptions that underlie the experiment, including that, on different
occasions, you have both given voice to your values and failed to give
voice to your values. And that others have successfully given voice to
their values, that it can be effective. It's important to recognize
that it's not something you can or will always do, but that the more
you do it, the easier it will be, and the more successful it will be.
Like anything else. Giving voice to one's values is a skill that
requires thought and practice. 
 
Once you've thought through your experiences, thought through how you
could best approach ethics issues, become realistic about the
possibilities of success (which includes determinng what you mean by
success), and considered what you can learn, even if you fail, and
recognized that your decision will help not only you deal with ethics
issues, but your colleagues as well, it will be much easier to give
voice to your values when the next occasion arises. 
 
Enablers 
But what about courage? It takes courage to stand up against what
appears to be opposition by those who can affect your career, even if
you recognize that many of your colleague agree with you but are not
saying what they really think. Well, courage is another thing that's
worth a lot more thought than we normally give it. 
 
Essentially, courage is an enabler. It is what allows us to act on our
convictions. Therefore, whatever enables us to act is what courage is
for us. The enabler can be a purpose that is very important to us, for
example, government transparency. Or it can be something we despise,
such as seeing someone intimidate someone else (or try to intimidate
us). It can be something as simple as someone telling us we don't know
what we're talking about. 
 
Fear itself can be an effective enabler. Like values, fears can be in
conflict. We might be afraid of losing our job or our friends, but also
afraid of losing our reputation, or afraid we won't be able to live
with ourselves if we do nothing, or afraid of being punished and all
that that might lead to. 
 
It is important to recognize that even the meekest of us has the
courage or the need or the fear or the anger necessary to act on our
convictions, at least to raise issues for discussion, ask questions,
stir things up a bit. 
 
Unlike other ethics books, this one is about empowerment, how to get
yourself to the point where you will be more likely to act on your
ethical convictions. Reading Giving
Voice to Values is itself empowering. Gentile's can-do attitude
is hard to resist. Were this the typical government official's attitude
toward ethics, government ethics would be a topic of daily discussion. Officials
would have a much deeper understanding of government ethics, would ask
sophisticated questions about it, and would be no more likely to handle
conflicts irresponsibly than they would, say, the fixing of a bridge or
the planning of a sports program. The reason is that they would be working together to
find the best solution for the community, instead of agonizing over what too many people consider to be a personal matter. 
 
In addition to reading the book, you can find a lot more information
about the Giving Voice to Values approach on <a href="http://www3.babson.edu/babson2ndgen/GVV/Curriculum.cfm" target="”_blank”">the
program's website</a>, which includes exercises,
cases, readings, teaching plans, and annotated bibliographies. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Giving Voice to Values II

Tags

Share This Page