You are here
Giving Voice to Values II
Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
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 groupthink 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 the program's website, which includes exercises, cases, readings, teaching plans, and annotated bibliographies.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
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 groupthink 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 the program's website, which includes exercises, cases, readings, teaching plans, and annotated bibliographies.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
