Frequently discussions of values and the lack of attention to them by
managers focuses upon the apparent insensitivity of managers to human
values. Another way values are sometimes dealt with among theoretical
people trying to deal with human conflicts presents the viewpoint that
people hold "deeply-rooted, non-negotiable values", and that explains why
there is so much conflict. Neither group is necessarily dedicated to
disciplined, systematic, scientific exploration of value-related matters.
Some findings related to this matter (not highly documented, but
highly-focused) take a different perspective. Granted that both of the
points of view expressed might be (or might not be) active in a given
situation, the following remains true. The analytical and synthetic
(logical) aspects of incorporating a set of (typically non-independent,
overlapping) values into a business-focused or solution-focused activity
is a MAJOR domain of complexity. If this were not true, we would find in
the social science and business literature careful analytic treatment of
how to bring the values in. Instead what we find is mathematical
optimization techniques ad nauseum, which generally related to one or more
of these values: academic promotion, increased salary, election to
society offices.
For a complementary treatment of this topic from a totally different
perspective, see the book REASON IN SOCIETY: FIVE TYPES OF RATIONALITY
AND THEIR SOCIAL CONDITIONS by Paul Diesing. (If you don't know how to
find it, ask your librarian to look for it in BOOKS IN PRINT.)
John N. Warfield
Johnwfield@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>