Giving Voice To Values

In this chapter, Gentile explores the concept of values and differentiates them from ethics and morals. While ethics refers to external rules or codes of conduct, and morality often focuses on right or wrong judgments, values represent personal beliefs that individuals hold deeply. Gentile emphasizes that values are internal and motivating, driving people to act in alignment with their core beliefs, rather than being imposed or judged externally.

The chapter explores how traditional ethical reasoning models, like utilitarianism or deontology, often fail to guide real-world action. These models can be manipulated to justify any decision, as seen in the anecdote about the MBA graduate who learns how to select the ethical model that best supports his choices, regardless of their rightness. Gentile argues that Giving Voice to Values (GVV) seeks to shift the focus from abstract ethical reasoning to practical, value-driven action. She places the emphasis on acting on one’s values once they have been identified, not just debating what is right.

A central point in the chapter is the universality of certain values across cultures. Gentile supports her argument by referencing Rushworth Kidder’s work, which identifies common values across different cultures, and Martin Seligman’s studies, which highlight six universal virtues: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. She also refers to Thomas Donaldson and Thomas Dunfee’s concept of “hypernorms”—values that transcend cultures and serve as a common ground for resolving ethical conflicts.

Gentile supports her approach with data from the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program surveys, which have been conducted since 2001. The most recent survey, conducted in 2008, compared responses from MBA students in 15 business schools across the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., with 14 business schools in China. The survey found that students from both Western and Chinese schools considered corporate responsibility important, though primarily for reputational reasons rather than direct financial impact. Interestingly, students in both regions prioritized work-life balance and compensation as key factors in their job selection, highlighting a shared focus on personal well-being alongside professional success. Despite cultural differences in how values conflicts are managed—Chinese students were more likely to quietly handle stress, while Western students leaned towards speaking up—the survey highlighted a common desire to act on personal values.

Gentile highlights one key finding from the survey regarding gender—women in both Western and Chinese schools showed greater concern for the social performance of businesses than men, revealing gender-based differences in how values are perceived and prioritized in the workplace.

Gentile also addresses the concern that Giving Voice to Values might enable people to advocate for unethical positions more effectively. She argues that the focus of GVV is not on empowering “wrong” values but rather on providing tools for those who genuinely wish to act ethically. Gentile emphasizes that even if an individual’s values-based position is flawed, the act of engaging in open dialogue often leads to better decision-making and a more thoughtful organizational process.

In Chapter 3, Gentile explores the theme of choice in ethical decision-making. The chapter emphasizes that the decision to act on one’s values is not solely based on bravery or ethical superiority but on recognizing that we have a choice in any given situation. Gentile asserts that people in similar situations often make different choices: some act on their values, while others remain silent. The key is not to view those who speak up as inherently better or braver but to understand what enables or disables individuals from acting on their values.

Gentile introduces an exercise called “A Tale of Two Stories,” which invites people to reflect on two past experiences: one where they spoke up for their values and one where they did not (50). The purpose of this reflection is to analyze the conditions that enabled them to act on their values in the first case and those that prevented them from doing so in the second. By examining both instances, individuals can better understand their own motivations, fears, and the organizational factors that influence their behavior.

The chapter also focuses on the concept of enablers and disablers—factors that either support or hinder the ability to voice values. Enablers might include having allies, gathering sufficient information, or understanding the fears and motivations of the audience. On the other hand, disablers can be the absence of these factors, which makes it harder to act. Gentile encourages readers to build networks of allies and gather relevant data before confronting values conflicts, as she believes preparation is critical in successfully voicing concerns.

Gentile builds upon the idea that acting on values becomes easier with practice, drawing from examples of individuals who, over time, developed the “muscle” of speaking up. The more they exercised their ability to voice their values, the more it became a part of their self-identity. “The more we do it, the more we will do it,” she writes, emphasizing that this habit-building can eventually reduce the emotional toll of confronting ethical dilemmas (71).

Gentile also points out that values conflicts are often about reframing the situation. For example, instead of viewing a decision as a win-lose scenario, individuals can frame it as an opportunity for dialogue or a chance to create a win-win outcome. This reframing, along with other strategic approaches such as selecting the right audience or breaking down actions into smaller, incremental steps, can help make value-based decisions more achievable. The chapter concludes by reinforcing the idea that we have more control over our actions than we might think. While external factors play a role, we have the capacity to transform disablers into enablers.