Putting shared values into words
People join a volunteer network for many reasons, and they rarely state them. When disagreements come, they often turn out to be about values rather than facts: one person cares most about independence, another about helping quickly, a third about doing things properly. Communities that ask their members, early on, what they value and why tend to handle such conflicts better. This article explains how.
What a value is
Psychologists distinguish values from attitudes or opinions. A value is a lasting belief about what is worth pursuing, which guides choices across many situations. Shalom Schwartz's theory of basic human values, first published in 1992 and tested in dozens of countries, identifies ten broad types: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism. They form a circle in which neighbouring values are compatible and opposite ones pull against each other: openness to change against conservation, and self-enhancement against self-transcendence.
The model is useful for groups because it shows that conflicts over values are normal. A network can hold members who rank security highly and members who rank stimulation highly; the task is not to make them identical but to make room for both.
Why ask
- Fit. Projects chosen in line with members' values attract more sustained effort than projects chosen for strategic reasons alone.
- Trust. Hearing why someone cares makes it easier to interpret their actions generously when things go wrong.
- Early warning. Differences that surface in a calm exercise are easier to address than those that surface in a crisis.
- Newcomers. A page where members describe what they value is a better introduction to a community than a mission statement.
Running an exercise
Several formats work, online or in person.
Personal statements
Ask each member to write a short paragraph in answer to a single question, such as "What do you care about most deeply, and how did you come to care about it?" Publish the answers side by side, with consent. Avoid editing them into a common text: the variety is the point.
Stories rather than abstractions
Abstract words like "justice" or "freedom" mean different things to different people. Asking for a story, a moment when you acted on what you care about, produces answers that others can understand and that are harder to fake.
Ranking and trade-offs
Once statements are collected, a group can discuss trade-offs: "If we can do only one of these this year, which matters more?" Card-sorting exercises, where members rank a set of value words, make the differences visible quickly.
Revisit
Values evolve as people and circumstances change. Repeating the exercise every year or two, and when many new members join, keeps it alive.
From values to agreements
Statements of value are a starting point. Turning them into working agreements makes them useful:
- a short list of commitments the group can check itself against, such as "we answer every newcomer within a week";
- a code of conduct describing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, with a way to report problems. The Contributor Covenant, written in 2014 for open-source projects, is a widely adapted model;
- decision rules that reflect what members care about. A network that values inclusion may require that any decision be open for comment for a set period before it is final.
Elinor Ostrom's research on long-lived commons found that rules work best when the people they affect help to make and change them. The same holds for value statements: imposed values tend to be ignored.
Pitfalls
- Performing virtue. Public statements can become competitions in sounding good. Stories and concrete examples reduce this.
- Pressure to conform. Members who hold minority values may stay silent. Anonymous options and private conversations help.
- Using values as weapons. "That is against our values" can end a debate rather than inform it. Agreements should say how disputes about values are discussed.
- Privacy. Personal statements reveal a lot. Ask before publishing, and let people withdraw them later.
Values and the work
A network that knows what its members care about chooses its endeavors better and runs them with less friction. It also finds it easier to explain itself to outsiders, partners and funders: not as an abstract mission, but as a group of people with reasons.
An illustration
Imagine a network of about forty volunteers who support small farmers, divided over whether to accept money from a large agricultural company. Rather than vote straight away, the group asks each member to write a few sentences about a time they felt proud of something they did for someone else, and posts the stories together. Suppose most of the stories turn out to be about independence: helping a farmer avoid debt, or learning to repair equipment rather than buy new. That shared thread gives the group a basis for its decision that a bare vote would not, whichever way it goes, and the reasoning can be written down so that newcomers understand it later. The example is hypothetical, but the method is the one described above: stories first, then the trade-off, then a written agreement.
The same approach can be used when a network grows quickly, when founders hand over to new coordinators, or when a partnership with another organisation is under discussion. In each case the aim is not consensus on every value but a clear picture of where members agree and where they differ.
Sources
- Shalom H. Schwartz, "Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, 1992.
- Shalom H. Schwartz, "An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values", Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2012.
- Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- Contributor Covenant, history and text: contributor-covenant.org.
- Milton Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, 1973.