When does neighbourly concern become interference? Or respect for rules prevent achieving results? Or flexibility lead to chaos? When does truth-telling become trolling? Or loyalty become dishonesty? When does independence prevent collaboration? Clear communication about values assists team-building and aligns purpose.
Loading...
The method leads to agreement around a set of basic values, with an interpretation that is generally accepted, and clarity about individual and common borders.
Each selected value, or ‘virtue’, is examined to clarify boundaries. For instance, when do ‘loyalty’ or ‘straight talking’ become negative? When do their opposites become desirable? This process can quickly de-fuse a conflicted situation, enable and enhance empathy and alignment, and forge a more effective team.
A common understanding of each others’ values, and even consensus about shared values, are often put forward as a vital basis for team-building and alignment of purpose. However communication about values is often ambiguous. For instance, ‘honesty’ can be interpreted to mean stating your judgements of a team member with no reference to the necessity or appropriateness. To prevent or to handle disagreements and conflicts within a team, use Working with Values.
The method is derived from principles of psychosynthesis
No. Mostly people have different associations with value-words, like ‘loyalty’ and ‘honesty’, so it’s easy to believe you’re talking about the same thing when in fact you’re not. This is a fast route to misunderstandings and conflict.
Any group that cares about a common purpose.
They need to care about the common purpose of the group, at least to the extent that they take the exercise seriously.
No. As long as you manage to establish that everyone’s input is valued equally, a mixed group can be an advantage.
We pose 4 questions for each chosen value:
What is the value you embrace? (eg loyalty)
What is its opposite, that you wish to avoid? (eg unreflecting trend-follower)
If the value were taken to an extreme, what would its negative pole be? (eg blind support even to evil purpose)
If the 'opposite' were to become a virtue, what would it be? (eg openness to new input, ability to reach new conscious position)
The sequence is entered into a table, one line for each of the chosen values:
3. Extreme of positive
1. Positive
2. Negative
4. Extreme of negative
If the group is larger than, say, 10 people, this and the following discussion and ranking (Step 3) can take place in break-out groups, for subsequent collating.
What do we mean by each of these? What indicators are there that a line has been crossed? Do we still think these are our highest priorities, or do we need to examine some other values? - in the latter case, repeat the steps.
In some cases it may be worth codifying the results into a kind of manifesto: this is how we want and aspire to relate to each other.
If in break-out groups, each group selects a maximum of three values to work on. If in plenary, max five.
Please click on the image to look inside or download
Click on cover to read. Get the real book here.
A simple way to get an overview of possible risks, and how to deal with them.
