Discussion: View Thread

I do not interpret the exchange below as "I'm right and you're wrong." Rather I interpret it as two people with different cognitive structures - each with a framework that makes sense to the individual. Situational values rather than common values across all humanity- the topic of the original discussion if I remember correctly. So, perhaps, if we want to believe that there is "one true and correct answer" then the default is "I'm right and you're wrong" when you don't 100% agree with my answer. And, if we can embrace that different people have different cognitive structures and describe their personal values according to their own cognitive structure, then we move away from the right/wrong default.

C.

Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida 32901
Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu

________________________________

From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Clawson, Jim
Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:41 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: The values discussion



Regarding, "I'm right, and you're wrong," and the exchange below, I rest
my case.

Jim
James G. S. Clawson
Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
Darden GSB, University of Virginia
Mail: Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906
Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Phone: 434-924-7488 Fax: 434-243-7680
Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/
Podcast on Powered by Feel:
http://www.darden.virginia.edu/podcasts/index.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:15 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: The values discussion

Earlier, I posted Lasswell's eight value categories:

> Power
> Wealth
> Respect
> Well Being
> Rectitude
> Skill
> Enlightenment
> Affection

To which George Graen responded:

> Where is Health, Family, Service, religion, and many more Harry?

Well, I think health falls under well being. Family fits easily under
affection. Service could fit under a couple of Lasswell's categories.
Religion is far from a universal value so I won't attempt to fit it into
Lasswell's categories. As for "many more" that's too vague.

> I prefer my Neo-Maslow's list as I described before.

Good for you, George. I'm glad you're comfortable with your list. I'm
comfortable with Lasswell's categories.


--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

Carolyn Fausnaugh writes in part regarding Jim Clawson's comment about an exchange between George Graen and myself: "I do not interpret the exchange below as I'm right and you're wrong."

Neither did I. But, FWIW, I did view George as indicating Lasswell's list wasn't up to his requirements. On my part, I don't care one way or the other. I was simply responding to Jim Clawson's earlier question about the existence of any "universal" values. I recalled Lasswell's work in that area and posted his eight categories. My response to George was simply saying he was welcome to his list and his preference for it.

Come to think of it, there is another "universal value" I've noted over the years: the tendency of people to happily impose their value systems on others.

For me, most discussions of values are generally meaningless. I don't believe for a moment that values drive or determine behavior. In fact, as I've already indicated, it is my view that values are simply explanations we've invented to account for observed patterns in human behavior. To be sure, many, many people cling to the notion of values - and to the values they espouse - but I think that's a form of superstitious behavior. The gaps between espoused values and observed patterns in the behavior of the people espousing those values are far too numerous and far too great to believe for a moment that there is any connection between the two. People simply don't "walk the talk" as common parlance has it.

So, if you ask me about my values, you'll probably get a blank look. But, if you ask me what I value, that's a different story. It's also one that varies with circumstances. So much for "universality."

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

Rather I
interpret it as two people with different cognitive structures - each with a
framework that makes sense to the individual. Situational values rather than
common values across all humanity- the topic of the original discussion if I
remember correctly. So, perhaps, if we want to believe that there is "one true
and correct answer" then the default is "I'm right and you're wrong" when you
don't 100% agree with my answer. And, if we can embrace that different people
have different cognitive structures and describe their personal values according
to their own cognitive structure, then we move away from the right/wrong
> default.
>
> C.
>
> Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
> Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
> Florida Institute of Technology
> Melbourne, Florida 32901
> Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
> E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Clawson, Jim
> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:41 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>
>
>
> Regarding, "I'm right, and you're wrong," and the exchange below, I rest
> my case.
>
> Jim
> James G. S. Clawson
> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
> Mail: Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906
> Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
> Phone: 434-924-7488 Fax: 434-243-7680
> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/
> Podcast on Powered by Feel:
> http://www.darden.virginia.edu/podcasts/index.asp
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:15 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>
> Earlier, I posted Lasswell's eight value categories:
>
> > Power
> > Wealth
> > Respect
> > Well Being
> > Rectitude
> > Skill
> > Enlightenment
> > Affection
>
> To which George Graen responded:
>
> > Where is Health, Family, Service, religion, and many more Harry?
>
> Well, I think health falls under well being. Family fits easily under
> affection. Service could fit under a couple of Lasswell's categories.
> Religion is far from a universal value so I won't attempt to fit it into
> Lasswell's categories. As for "many more" that's too vague.
>
> > I prefer my Neo-Maslow's list as I described before.
>
> Good for you, George. I'm glad you're comfortable with your list. I'm
> comfortable with Lasswell's categories.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"

Useful distinction.
While personal values may be discussed on this forum is it permissible for
the leader to declare his or hers in the classroom? That was one of the
origins of this discussion.
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Fausnaugh" <cfausnau@FIT.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: The values discussion - right and wrong


>I do not interpret the exchange below as "I'm right and you're wrong."
>Rather I interpret it as two people with different cognitive structures -
>each with a framework that makes sense to the individual. Situational
>values rather than common values across all humanity- the topic of the
>original discussion if I remember correctly. So, perhaps, if we want to
>believe that there is "one true and correct answer" then the default is
>"I'm right and you're wrong" when you don't 100% agree with my answer.
>And, if we can embrace that different people have different cognitive
>structures and describe their personal values according to their own
>cognitive structure, then we move away from the right/wrong default.
>
> C.
>
> Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
> Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
> Florida Institute of Technology
> Melbourne, Florida 32901
> Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
> E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
> Clawson, Jim
> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:41 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>
>
>
> Regarding, "I'm right, and you're wrong," and the exchange below, I rest
> my case.
>
> Jim
> James G. S. Clawson
> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
> Mail: Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906
> Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
> Phone: 434-924-7488 Fax: 434-243-7680
> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/
> Podcast on Powered by Feel:
> http://www.darden.virginia.edu/podcasts/index.asp
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:15 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>
> Earlier, I posted Lasswell's eight value categories:
>
>> Power
>> Wealth
>> Respect
>> Well Being
>> Rectitude
>> Skill
>> Enlightenment
>> Affection
>
> To which George Graen responded:
>
>> Where is Health, Family, Service, religion, and many more Harry?
>
> Well, I think health falls under well being. Family fits easily under
> affection. Service could fit under a couple of Lasswell's categories.
> Religion is far from a universal value so I won't attempt to fit it into
> Lasswell's categories. As for "many more" that's too vague.
>
>> I prefer my Neo-Maslow's list as I described before.
>
> Good for you, George. I'm glad you're comfortable with your list. I'm
> comfortable with Lasswell's categories.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"
>

Permissible or SOP? For me it is SOP. Why would I hide what I think
from my students?

Ralph




On Apr 9, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Jack Ring wrote:

> Useful distinction.
> While personal values may be discussed on this forum is it
> permissible for
> the leader to declare his or hers in the classroom? That was one of
> the
> origins of this discussion.
> Jack Ring
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carolyn Fausnaugh" <cfausnau@FIT.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: The values discussion - right and wrong
>
>
>> I do not interpret the exchange below as "I'm right and you're
>> wrong."
>> Rather I interpret it as two people with different cognitive
>> structures -
>> each with a framework that makes sense to the individual.
>> Situational
>> values rather than common values across all humanity- the topic of
>> the
>> original discussion if I remember correctly. So, perhaps, if we
>> want to
>> believe that there is "one true and correct answer" then the
>> default is
>> "I'm right and you're wrong" when you don't 100% agree with my
>> answer.
>> And, if we can embrace that different people have different cognitive
>> structures and describe their personal values according to their own
>> cognitive structure, then we move away from the right/wrong default.
>>
>> C.
>>
>> Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
>> Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
>> Florida Institute of Technology
>> Melbourne, Florida 32901
>> Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
>> E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>> Clawson, Jim
>> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:41 AM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding, "I'm right, and you're wrong," and the exchange below, I
>> rest
>> my case.
>>
>> Jim
>> James G. S. Clawson
>> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
>> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
>> Mail: Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906
>> Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> Phone: 434-924-7488 Fax: 434-243-7680
>> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/
>> Podcast on Powered by Feel:
>> http://www.darden.virginia.edu/podcasts/index.asp
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
>> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:15 AM
>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>>
>> Earlier, I posted Lasswell's eight value categories:
>>
>>> Power
>>> Wealth
>>> Respect
>>> Well Being
>>> Rectitude
>>> Skill
>>> Enlightenment
>>> Affection
>>
>> To which George Graen responded:
>>
>>> Where is Health, Family, Service, religion, and many more Harry?
>>
>> Well, I think health falls under well being. Family fits easily under
>> affection. Service could fit under a couple of Lasswell's
>> categories.
>> Religion is far from a universal value so I won't attempt to fit it
>> into
>> Lasswell's categories. As for "many more" that's too vague.
>>
>>> I prefer my Neo-Maslow's list as I described before.
>>
>> Good for you, George. I'm glad you're comfortable with your list.
>> I'm
>> comfortable with Lasswell's categories.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Fred Nickols
>> Managing Partner
>> Distance Consulting, LLC
>> nickols@att.net
>> www.nickols.us
>>
>> "Assistance at A Distance"
>>

Because you are in a position of apparent authority, c.f., sexual
harrassment.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Hanke" <ralphh@BGSU.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: The values discussion - right and wrong


> Permissible or SOP? For me it is SOP. Why would I hide what I think from
> my students?
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>> Useful distinction.
>> While personal values may be discussed on this forum is it permissible
>> for
>> the leader to declare his or hers in the classroom? That was one of the
>> origins of this discussion.
>> Jack Ring
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carolyn Fausnaugh" <cfausnau@FIT.EDU>
>> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: The values discussion - right and wrong
>>
>>
>>> I do not interpret the exchange below as "I'm right and you're wrong."
>>> Rather I interpret it as two people with different cognitive
>>> structures -
>>> each with a framework that makes sense to the individual. Situational
>>> values rather than common values across all humanity- the topic of the
>>> original discussion if I remember correctly. So, perhaps, if we want
>>> to
>>> believe that there is "one true and correct answer" then the default is
>>> "I'm right and you're wrong" when you don't 100% agree with my answer.
>>> And, if we can embrace that different people have different cognitive
>>> structures and describe their personal values according to their own
>>> cognitive structure, then we move away from the right/wrong default.
>>>
>>> C.
>>>
>>> Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
>>> Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
>>> Florida Institute of Technology
>>> Melbourne, Florida 32901
>>> Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
>>> E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
>>> Clawson, Jim
>>> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:41 AM
>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding, "I'm right, and you're wrong," and the exchange below, I
>>> rest
>>> my case.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> James G. S. Clawson
>>> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
>>> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
>>> Mail: Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906
>>> Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>> Phone: 434-924-7488 Fax: 434-243-7680
>>> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/
>>> Podcast on Powered by Feel:
>>> http://www.darden.virginia.edu/podcasts/index.asp
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
>>> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:15 AM
>>> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: The values discussion
>>>
>>> Earlier, I posted Lasswell's eight value categories:
>>>
>>>> Power
>>>> Wealth
>>>> Respect
>>>> Well Being
>>>> Rectitude
>>>> Skill
>>>> Enlightenment
>>>> Affection
>>>
>>> To which George Graen responded:
>>>
>>>> Where is Health, Family, Service, religion, and many more Harry?
>>>
>>> Well, I think health falls under well being. Family fits easily under
>>> affection. Service could fit under a couple of Lasswell's categories.
>>> Religion is far from a universal value so I won't attempt to fit it
>>> into
>>> Lasswell's categories. As for "many more" that's too vague.
>>>
>>>> I prefer my Neo-Maslow's list as I described before.
>>>
>>> Good for you, George. I'm glad you're comfortable with your list. I'm
>>> comfortable with Lasswell's categories.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Fred Nickols
>>> Managing Partner
>>> Distance Consulting, LLC
>>> nickols@att.net
>>> www.nickols.us
>>>
>>> "Assistance at A Distance"
>>>
>