Giving Voice To Values

Gentile examines the predictable rationalizations often used to justify unethical behavior in the workplace. These rationalizations, such as “everyone does this” (179) (Expected or Standard Practice), “it doesn’t really hurt anyone” (179) (Materiality), “I’m just following orders here” (179) (Locus of Responsibility), and “I don’t want to hurt my reports/team/boss/company” (179) (Locus of Loyalty), frequently hinder efforts to voice ethical values. Gentile argues that by preparing counterarguments in advance, individuals can more effectively respond to these objections and advocate for ethical decisions in the workplace.

Gentile again draws on Jonathan Haidt’s research, which suggests that emotions often guide actions more than reason. This emotional pull can make it challenging for individuals to make ethical decisions when emotional comfort conflicts with ethical considerations. However, Gentile emphasizes that people can be empowered to act on their values, as most individuals want to do the right thing but fear the potential difficulty. To support this empowerment, Gentile provides a framework for developing responses to values conflicts, which includes asking key questions like “What is the action or decision that we believe is right?” (173) and “What are the reasons and rationalizations we will need to address?” (174).

The chapter introduces common categories of values conflicts, drawing from Rushworth Kidder’s “right versus right” dilemmas (176). These include conflicts like “truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, and short-term versus long-term” (176). While these dilemmas often involve conflicting values, Gentile warns that framing situations as a “right versus right” conflict can sometimes serve as a rationalization for unethical behavior.

Additionally, Gentile explores decision-making biases and heuristics that can cloud ethical judgment, using Robert Prentice’s research as a foundation. Biases such as “Obedience to Authority” (the tendency to follow orders from authority figures), Social Proof (conforming to group behaviors), Overoptimism (unrealistic belief that things will turn out well), Self-Serving Bias (favoring interpretations that benefit oneself), Framing (where decisions are influenced by how information is presented), and Cognitive Dissonance (the discomfort of holding conflicting beliefs) are discussed in detail (195). Gentile explains how acknowledging these biases can reduce their influence and help individuals create more persuasive scripts for voicing their values.

Importantly, Gentile also discusses “Sunk Costs and Loss Aversion”—the tendency for people to continue with a course of action simply because they have already invested time or resources into it (204). Gentile asserts that people often resist changing course even when their decision is no longer viable or ethical. She suggests reframing the situation by focusing on the gains from previous decisions, such as knowledge or experience, to help individuals move on from past investments, allowing them to make more ethical decisions without feeling trapped by prior commitments.

Gentile also raises another significant bias—“The Tangible, the Abstract, and Time-Delay Traps” (205). People tend to prioritize immediate, tangible factors over distant, abstract consequences. This bias can prevent individuals from making ethical decisions when the potential harm is hypothetical or removed in time. Gentile recommends using compelling stories, data, or visual aids to make the consequences feel more real and tangible, helping individuals recognize the long-term impact of their decisions.

Gentile explores how individuals can effectively put their values into action in the workplace, even in the face of conflicting pressures. She begins by referencing Albert O. Hirschman’s framework of three possible responses to organizational decline: exit, voice, and loyalty. Gentile applies this framework to values conflicts, emphasizing that voicing one’s values, rather than simply complying or leaving, is both possible and can be made more comfortable and effective through preparation, understanding personal strengths, and practicing how to articulate value-driven positions.

The chapter reflects on the broader themes discussed throughout the book, reminding readers of the seven foundational pillars for voicing values: Values, Choice, Normality, Purpose, Self-Knowledge, Voice, and Reasons and Rationalizations. Gentile emphasizes that the arguments used to voice values don’t need to be perfect; in fact, the opposition’s arguments are often flawed as well. The focus should be on crafting a credible narrative that supports values such as integrity and compassion, even if others hold different viewpoints. This narrative helps build confidence, enabling individuals to articulate and defend their values more effectively.

One of the key observations Gentile makes is that individuals often hesitate to voice their values because they only consider the risks of doing so. However, those who successfully voice their values tend to focus on the risks of not speaking up, such as compromising personal integrity, damaging relationships with colleagues, or losing trust with customers. Gentile also highlights the power of surprise in finding effective, sometimes unexpected, arguments to support ethical action.

The chapter discusses decision-making under pressure and offers ways to navigate time constraints. While individuals may feel they have only one chance to respond to a values conflict, Gentile provides examples of how people can buy time to reflect and develop more thoughtful responses. She stresses that courage, often seen as necessary for speaking up, can be defined and accessed differently depending on the individual. Whether driven by a rejection of an untenable situation or hope for a positive outcome, everyone can find a source of courage.

Gentile concludes that voicing values requires practice. By engaging with peers, reflecting on examples, and developing scripts, individuals can strengthen their ability to act on their values.