Answer & Explanation:Hello, please assist with the below:Download and read the article “Fostering Values in Organizations” at http://tinyurl.com/pwdvsv4.Download and read the article “Integrating ethics into action theory and organizational theory” at http://tinyurl.com/pbxyud4.Download and review the Four Lens Model of Worldview Development.docx file.Using the Four-Lens Worldview Model, thoughtfully consider what you know about fostering values when looking at the concept through each lens. Consider the concepts listed in the file.Choose one concept from those listed.Fill in the square for each lens, describing that concept. Pick two words or a short phrase for each lens and write it in the appropriate box for the concept you have chosen. Every cell for the selected values concept should contain different words or phrases. Navigate to the threaded discussion below and respond to the following based on your selection of words or phrases in the model:Clarifying the Values Concept: Did the model help to clarify the values concept you have chosen?Comparing and Contrasting Each Lens: Compare and contrast each lens, showing their similarities and differences related to the concept you chose. Provide a detailed explanation for your evaluation.Provide a detailed post that demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking. Your initial response should be 200-300 words in length and include two academic resources that are properly cited.Attach the completed Four-Lens Model of Worldview Development to your initial post.Thanks,
hr_article_1.pdf
hr_article_2.pdf
four_lens_model_of_worldview_development.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Fostering Values
in Organizations
ABSTRACT. Today, values hold a prominent place
both in business ethics and in organization theory.
However, there persists considerable confusion about
what these values are and what role they play in these
theories and, therefore, how they can be developed
both within the individual and within the organization. Therefore, this paper seeks to define a conception of values based on a theory of human action that
can provide a basis for an organization theory, and to
propose a series of ideas about how personal and organizational values can be fostered.
KEY WORDS: action theory, motives, organization,
strategy, values, virtues
Introduction1
“Values” has become one of today’s buzzwords.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, were, for
many people, an attack on Western values – the
same values which, according to others, have
been in crisis since God knows when (if there
was ever a time when they were not in crisis).
Others talk about a resurgence of values – or, at
Antonio Argandoña is Professor of Economics and Chair
of Economics and Ethics at IESE Business School,
University of Navarra. A member of the Royal Academy
of Economics and Finance, he has been the Honorary
Treasurer of the European Business Ethics Network
(EBEN), and founder and Secretary General of
Etica, Economia y Direccion, the Spanish branch
of EBEN. Author and editor of many books and
articles on economic and business ethics, like People
in Corporations: Ethical Responsibilities and
Corporate Responsiveness (Kluwer, 1990, co-edited
with Georges Enderle and Brenda Almond), La etica
en la empresa (1994) and The Ethical Dimension
of Financial Institutions and Markets (1995).
Antonio Argandoña
least, of some of them: democracy, freedom,
solidarity, equal rights, . . . . For some people,
values “sell”: perhaps that is why companies talk
about them so much. For others, this is nothing
more than a cynical attitude that proves that the
only important value today is money. Some
prefer not to talk about values, because – so they
say – that is “low-profile” ethics, an ill-known
subject which simply enables everyone to say that
we agree on something when, in actual fact,
we do not agree on anything.2 Others, on the
contrary, think that it is good to talk about
values, even at the risk of tiring the word out
through overuse, because they can provide a
starting point for a dialog from which it is likely
that something good will come.
The purpose of this paper is to formulate a
proposal for fostering values both within the
individual and within organizations. After a brief
explanation of what values are and their features,
a theory of human action is succinctly proposed
that is able to give meaning to the conception
of values given in this article. This is followed
by a discussion of the problems raised by the
variety and stability of values and the meaning of
values within an organization, which leads to the
paper’s two central sections, where a number of
ideas are proposed for the development of values,
first within the individual and then within organizations. After discussing some of the difficulties that are inherent to the process, the article
closes with the conclusions.
This article is based on certain central theses,
which I will present successively in the pages that
follow, although I will not make any attempt
to develop them systematically: (1) values are
not the icing on the top of the cake but the
basic structure that supports the building. (2) Any
Journal of Business Ethics 45: 15–28, 2003.
© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
16
Antonio Argandoña
manager who does not take values into account
– both his own and other people’s – will be a
bad manager. (3) Values are part of companies’
distinctive competences and, therefore, shape
their long-term success (although not necessarily
their short-term profitability). (4) The values that
a company chooses as these distinctive competences’ anchor point will be fundamental in
shaping its strategy; indeed, one can safely say
that two companies with different values will
follow different paths. (5) We all have values, but
they must be defined, discussed and used; and a
vital part of this process is to ask ourselves how
we can foster values both within the individual
and within the organization.
fore, of our conducts, becoming an integral part of our
way of being and acting to the point of shaping our
character.4
Values are normative: they tell us how we
should behave – although they are often presented in positive terms.5 Their meaning is objective – we want things that are good and valuable,
but things are not good or valuable because we
want them – but our valuations are subjective –
things are valuable for us; we feel the value of
things.6 We cannot be indifferent about them, they
demand a response from us – this is what sets
them apart from mere tastes or preferences.7
A theory of action
What are values?
All of us value continually. Such simple decisions
as picking up the umbrella when we leave home
because it looks like rain reflect on our values –
health, comfort, prestige, appreciation of material
goods, etc. In fact, we can say that our decisions
are guided by values – although they also depend
on other variables, especially our needs. Thus,
although the decision to buy a subway ticket may
be in response to very different motivations, not
necessarily guided by values (at least, by lasting
values), the decision to consistently honor all
contractual and legal obligations is without doubt
a reflection of the value of honesty.3
Values are reflected in decisions; the repetition
of values in decisions shows the existence of a
virtue (and strengthens it), and the body of virtues
shapes a character, which gives consistency to
subsequent decisions until a conduct is defined.
In turn, each of these stages makes a mark on
other people’s values, in the same way that their
decisions, virtues, characters and conducts influence our values. Thus, values’ individual and social
dimensions are interrelated, they influence each
other mutually – which does not mean that our
values are imposed on us by other people’s
values.
In a very broad sense, we can define values as
central desires or beliefs regarding final states or desirable conducts that transcend specific situations, guide
the choice and evaluation of our decisions and, there-
The conception of values that I propose in this
article will be easier to understand if first the
anthropology on which it is based is explained.
So, first of all, I will briefly address this in the
form of a theory of human action, pointing out only
the features that are of interest to us for the
purposes of this article.8
The starting point of any human action is a
problem: an unwanted effect – a satisfaction that
the agent seeks or a dissatisfaction he wishes to
eliminate. Consequently, the action’s purpose is
to solve the problem. Given this situation, and
following a process that we will not go into here,
the agent discovers possible solutions for this
problem (means to achieve the end); she tries to
anticipate the satisfaction she will feel with the
different solutions (anticipated satisfaction), and she
makes a decision about which of these solutions
is the best, following certain criteria which it is
assumed have been defined beforehand.
The action theory usually put forward by
economists normally ends here, because it only
seeks to explain how the decision is made.
However, there is more to it than is. Because,
once the decision is made, the agent will perform
the action and, if the decision made was correct,
she will experience the satisfaction (perceived
satisfaction) – which is the action’s extrinsic outcome.
The simple process of taking decisions and
performing the action also has effects on the
agent (intrinsic outcomes), either through the
acquisition of knowledge (for example, because she
Fostering Values in Organizations
has identified difficulties that she was previously
not aware of or because she has discovered new
ways of solving the same problem, or because
the perceived satisfaction does not match the
expected satisfaction), or through the acquisition
of abilities and skills (for example, because she has
learnt to perform the action so that, in the future,
she will be able to perform it again more effectively, more easily, and in less time).
If the agent has to perform the same or other
similar actions in the future, this intrinsic learning
will change her decision rule – this is obvious if
the action creates some type of addiction.
However, this means that, when valuing the
decision, one must take into consideration not only its
extrinsic outcomes or effects but also the intrinsic
outcomes – and, again, the example of addiction
is particularly clear: when valuing the decision to
smoke, the agent should stop to consider not
only his decision’s extrinsic effects (the pleasure,
for example), but also the likelihood of becoming
an addict to tobacco and, therefore, the possible
effects of this addiction.
However, the explanation of our theory of
action goes further than this; most of the actions
we perform involve other people, which means
that, when valuing an action, we must take into
consideration not only the extrinsic and intrinsic
outcomes on the agent himself, but also her
action’s effects on the other agents (transcendent
outcomes). This is because these effects will also
change the others’ decision rules and, therefore,
their future behavior – and the outcomes of the
agent’s action for herself. If, for example, the
action that the agent is considering performing
involves lying to a third party in order to obtain
an extrinsic outcome, any valuation of the action
would be incomplete if it does not include that
third party’s possible reactions should she find out
that she has been deceived. And if the action
involves asking or forcing a third party to lie,
the valuation of the action must also include that
person’s moral learning, the changes that will take
place in her conduct and the expected effects on
the agent herself.
Implicit in this brief explanation of our theory
of action is the presence at any given time of three
types of motive: attaining the anticipated or
expected satisfaction (extrinsic motive), developing
17
learning within the agent (intrinsic motive), and
generating certain effects in others (transcendent
motives). These three types of motive correlate
with three types of value related with the action:
extrinsic values (when the agent takes into consideration and values her action’s extrinsic
effects), intrinsic values (when the valuation refers
to the decision’s intrinsic effects on the agent
herself ), and transcendent values (when the agent
takes into consideration her action’s effects on
other people).
Thus, any valuation process of an action will be
incomplete unless all three of the value categories we
have mentioned are taken into account, and, therefore, any decision made on the basis of one or
two of these values, but not on all three, will
probably be wrong. That is why we said earlier
that a manager – or any other agent – who makes
decisions without valuing all of her action’s
outcomes will be making wrong decisions, because she
will be omitting certain aspects of reality that are important for that decision.
Due to the existence of different types of
learning within the action, we must also distinguish between two facets that are part of any
value: rationality and virtuality. From the rationality viewpoint, values are ideals or paradigms of
the conduct, indicating what the agent should
do: following a rational process, each individual
must decide what values he should adopt and
why.9 And this process also has two facets: information – what the value consists of –, and education – why it is necessary to adopt that value or
what outcomes the actions have, depending on
whether or not the agent lives by that value. And
from the virtuality viewpoint – values as virtues –,
the agent needs a training process in order to be
able to live by the values she professes.
The variety and stability of values
From what has been said so far, it is obvious that
there is a great variety of values.10 The literature
on the subject usually distinguishes between
positive and negative values. Obviously, there are
no totally negative values, as nobody would
accept them; values become negative when the
intrinsic and transcendent effects of the actions
18
Antonio Argandoña
generated by them are taken into account. In
other words, negative values entail a type of
learning that harms the agent herself or others,
because they change her decision rule and, in the
process, the coherence of her future actions – as
the example of the addiction to drugs or tobacco
shows.
A distinction is also made between ultimate and
instrumental values. The former are desired simply
for what they are. They are classed as goals
or objectives and are usually more abstract and
universal, less changing, while the latter are
viewed as means to achieve the former, and are
usually more concrete and relative. This classification is necessarily imprecise: there are very few
values that are truly ultimate; most values are
ultimate with respect to other lower values, but
are instrumental for other higher values. Honesty,
for example, may be an instrumental value for
trust, which, in turn, is an instrumental value for
peace. In the same manner, power is usually an
instrumental value for attaining something but,
when it is threatened, it becomes an end in itself
(power for power’s sake), destroying its original
function in the process.11
One also talks of a broad variety of values
because of the different types of content:
intellectual, emotional, esthetic, religious, moral or
ethical, social, political, economic, sensitive, useful,
vital, etc.
Whatever the viewpoint taken, it is obvious
that we can talk of a scale or hierarchy of values,
which, in turn, can be objective (ultimate values
occupy a higher position than instrumental
values) or subjective (the agent gives more importance to certain values over others, at least in
certain circumstances). The values holding lower
positions on the scale are usually more intense
(one feels more intensely the pleasure of a good
meal than that of truthfulness), which suggests
that there are more important qualities than
“feeling” a value. Likewise, the values we can
call “higher” are usually more lasting (love vs
pleasure), less divisible (one can divide money,
but not love), basic (they provide the foundation
for the “lower” values), give deeper satisfaction,
are less urgent (but no less necessary), and their
violation is usually punished less than a lower
value (friendship is probably a higher value than
ownership, but theft is punished more severely
than inconsiderate behavior).12
The existence of a scale of values is important because it provides a means for resolving
value conflicts within the individual. But this does
not mean that the scale is absolute, timeless, and
abstract.
Are values stable? This question is of particular interest to us, because the focus of our
inquiry is the possibility of changing values –
creating them, nurturing them, and destroying
them. It is been found empirically that values are
fairly stable, particularly the higher (ultimate)
values, but they can change – and, in fact, they
do.13 And it is perfectly reasonable that they
should, since any given valuation is dependent,
at least to some extent, on the agent’s circumstances. We can say, for example, that health is
an important value for an elderly person but not
so much for a young person, although it is
probably more correct to say that health is an
important value for anyone, but its exact status
is not the same for a 20-year-old as it is for a
60-year-old. In the same manner, for a hungry
person, food has a very high value, even above
other values, while for a well-fed person, the
value of food is inseparable from its cultural,
esthetic, social relationship or friendship components.
Why do values change? Probably, for two types
of reason: those that bring about a change from
without (a change of values in other people or in
society, social learning, change of circumstances,
etc.), and those that bring about change from
within the agent (as a result of the learning mentioned above).
Values in organizations
So far, we have been talking about people’s
values, which is logical, because values are always
held by someone. However, we can also talk of
suprapersonal values: those of the family, the
company, the political party, the club, the profession, the town, the country, even global or
universal values.
When discussing the values held within
an organization or group, we can distinguish
Fostering Values in Organizations
between the personal values of the group’s
members (which are not, strictly speaking, the
group’s values), the personal values shared by the
group’s members, the values adopted by people
as members of the group, and the values held by
the group as such. We can also distinguish
between the values of the group’s (or company’s)
founders, those of its renovators or refounders,
of its managers, members, etc.14 And, lastly, we
can distinguish between the group’s formal or
declared values and its informal or actually practiced values.
Do organizations have values, or should we only
speak of their members’ values? It is true, as we
have said, that values always originate from
people, but I think we should also recognize
the existence of organizational values that go
beyond individual values. For instance, if A is
tolerant, B as well and C too, the partnership
formed by the three will probably be tolerant,
. . . but not necessarily. And this need not be
interpreted as a lack of consistency in the
members’ values.15
Thus, an organization is a group of people whose
actions are coordinated in order to achieve certain results
in which they all have an interest, although not
necessarily for the same reasons. This justifies the
existence of a management – structure, rules,
culture, . . . –, which explains why the values
implemented within the organization may not concur
with those of its members. For example, an “I’m the
boss” culture which gives priority to control may
quash the creativity of the organization’s
members, their desire to be involved and their
sense of responsibility, even though these values
are present in the people who work in the organization. Likewise, a group of honest people may
end up losing this value if the culture and operating rules of the company in which they work
encourages dishonest conducts.16
Consequently, we can distinguish between the
values of the organization’s members as such, and the
values that the organization holds or needs in order
to achieve its purpose.17 For the purposes of our
discussion, all of these values are held by individuals, but their significance is very different. In
any case, both must be fostered.
On the basis of what we have said so far, it is
logical that organizations – and the people who
19
belong to them – should hold a great variety of
values. Obviously, these values will vary from one
type of organization to another: the family is an
organization based on the nurturing and protection of certain common values; the same process
is to be found to a much more limited degree
among the people who belong to the same local
community, trade union or company. It is logical
that unity should be high when considering the
organization’s fundamental and distinctive values,
but diversity will be greater when considering
the instrumental values. And this need not be
undesirable if this variety enables greater efficiency to be achieved in promoting the values
that are important.1 …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
