I figured out that there are, of course, a lot of gray issues in the world and,
frankly, I don't know what the right answer is to most of those situations.
But the fact is, those are often situations where reasonable people
of good will and intelligence can legitimately disagree.
That's why they're gray.
But nevertheless, there are a lot of issues where most of us, not everyone, but
most of us would probably say, you know, that's clearly fraudulent.
That's clearly over the line.
That's clearly illegal.
That's not something that I want to do.
But just because many of us are clear that something is, in fact,
over the line, doesn't mean that we feel empowered, and
capable, and skillful, and confident at getting it done.
And so, what I decided is, let's focus on those so called clear cut issues, those so
called black and white issues, when we're giving people the opportunity to rehearse
and prescript an action plan for voicing their values.
If we focus on the gray issues, we never get past the discussion about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
We never get past the endless debate about is this right or wrong.
But if we focus on those more clear cut issues and
we start with the GVV thought experiment.
What if you were this protagonist who knows what her or she wants to get done?
Then people can get to the action planning part of it.
So that's the first flip.
The second flip is, who do we think we're talking to when we talk about values and
ethics in the work place?
Used to be, I'd go into a business school, or into an organization, or company and
somebody would say well, you know, most of the people here are good people,
we've just got a few bad apples and they're the ones this training is for.
But I actually think of the audience for
giving voice to values a little differently.
This idea is based on some research by Greg Dees and
Peter Crampton on ethics and negotiation.
But, basically, I think of the audience in the classroom, or in the organization, or
in the company as a bell curve.
And at one tail end of the bell curve we premise that there are those people
who would self identify as opportunists.
These are the people that will say, I'll do whatever it takes
to maximize my personal material self interest, regardless of values.
Now, nobody falls into one of these categories all the time, but
these are people who would say, this is primarily my motivation.
And at the other tail end of the bell curve,
are the folks who would self identify as, idealists.
And we define idealists as people who would say, I would always try and
act in my values, regardless of the impact on my self interest.
Now, what we premise is, that most of us fall under the bell,
I put myself there and we call them pragmatists.
And we define pragmatists as people who would say, I would like to act
on my values as long as it doesn't put me at a systematic disadvantage.
Now, that's not the same as saying, as long a I know I'll succeed.
It's not the same as saying, as long as I know I'll never pay a price.
It simply means, I think I have a shot.
Now, if you define your audience that way,
I don't really believe I have the power to change the opportunists.
I believe the opportunists will always be with us.
And I'm not so worried about the idealists,
although, I would like them to feel more skillful and more competent.
But we're really focusing on the pragmatists.
And we're trying to give them the skills, the literal scripts, the rehearsal and
the peer coaching to be who they already want to be at their best.
We're not trying to change them, we're trying to empower them to enable them.
And then, the final flip is how we do this, and
I've already explained that to you, it's by asking the new questions.
It's about asking not, what is the right thing to do?
But, once you know what's right, how can you get it done effectively?
So those are the three GVV flips.