Protected Values in Decision Making
My Protected Values (PV), the intentional use of particular semantics (say what you mean, and mean what you say), forthcoming and upfront behavior, and fairness, I typically keep close in mind, reference them often, and use them in comparisons regularly to hold against scrutiny (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001).
These values I hold most dear, because I believe that clear, concise, unambiguous language offers the best avenue to understanding. I value those who can be forthcoming and upfront, because it leave me with a sense of trust. I believe that honesty typically is the best policy. I learned long ago that I would rather face the consequences of a truth than a lie. My third PV is fairness, because life can often be unfair, and to be able to inject a sense of fairness into decision making makes me feel good about my ability to make compromise with another person, or people.
In considering what circumstances I might allow a trade-off to occur with either of these three PVs, I can state that these PVs, or any other PVs of mine, are not absolute, save one - my spirituality. That is to say that my belief in God is beyond reproach, unchangeable against all scrutiny and threat, and will never be compromised in any way. I chose three PVs that may potentially get traded off under specific circumstances.
In respect to the use of choice semantics in attempt to convey an idea, I may trade-off in the case of confusing another in hopes of winning an argument. Receiving confusing language from another without attempting to get clarification would come from a disinterested disposition in what the other had to say, or to avoid an argumentative conflict. With respect to being forthcoming and upfront, I suppose I would support this value up to the point where I would feel it may do some irreparable harm.
Conceptualizing how these values progress from being protected to getting partially traded-off can be seen when the PV is in conflict with another value of sorts. As this 'other value' increases, the likelihood of a trade-off of the PV increases. To associate Gilbert (2005), with these potential conflicts, It seems to me in my experience that computing probability will occur once a conflict has been identified between a PV and another value that is not so protected, but whose probability has made it so that if the PV was not allowed for a trade-off, would cause some type of irreparable harm.
For example, if my spouse asked if there is enough money to go away for the weekend, and I said, no, not this weekend, I would see a conflict between not being forthcoming and upfront with her about the money spent two days ago to get my truck professionally detailed, and the value of her trust in me to make choices she would agree with. In this case, I would let her believe the money went to bills in order to preserve her trust. Here, I chose a value whose probability of loss had increased to the point that being forthcoming and upfront could have tainted the trust my spouse had in me, therefore, choosing to maintain the trust with a valuable lesson learned, as well as a dose of guilt. Vlachoutsicos (2013), shares "balancing the tensions between adhering to one’s values and being effective may well demand uncomfortable compromises".
References:
Gilbert, D. (2005, July). Dan gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness?language=en
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C. & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mulligan, K. (2004). The nature of value conflict and its consequences for public opinion. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1092075628/inline
Vlachoutsicos, C. (2013, January 31). Ethics: When your values clash with your company's. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/when-your-values-clash-with-yo
No comments:
Post a Comment