by Caroline Raat
“Giving Voice to Values” (GVV) by dr. M.C. Gentile is a popular, but theoretically not well-founded educational program and approach to values-driven leadership development in business education and the workplace. Rather than focusing on ethical analysis and philosophical reasoning, GVV concentrates on ethical implementation, addressing the question: “How can I express my values effectively in a professional setting?” The foundation of GVV is the premise that most individuals already know what is right, but they struggle with how to express and act on their values in the workplace, especially when faced with opposition or pressure. It is designed to help individuals develop the skills, confidence, and habit of voicing and enacting their values. In many ways, GVV is a glorified assertiveness training, based on pseudoscience.
This may not be problematic until we realize that it may actually do harm to people that naively believe that they should and can speak their mind and get retaliated. Global statistics in show that in recent years, the number of reports of wrongdoings have risen, but that retaliation reports have ‘skyrocketed’. This should be reason why theories behind ‘speak up’, GVV and psychological safety should be independently scrutinized. Do they create ‘false safety’?
The unfounded theory behind GVV
The central premise of GVV is that most individuals already know what is ethically right or wrong, but they often struggle with how to express and act on their values in a professional context. The approach is not about debating ethical dilemmas or determining what is right or wrong, but rather about empowering individuals to speak up and act on their values effectively. It is built on the idea that voice is a muscle and that it can be strengthened through practice and rehearsal. The curriculum provides a framework for individuals to develop scripts and action plans to address values conflicts in a constructive manner.
It encourages individuals to anticipate the objections and rationalizations they might encounter and to prepare responses that allow them to remain true to their values. In the end that giving voice to values ‘helps to create’ organizational cultures that support and encourage ethical behavior. One of the distinctive features of GVV is its focus on “pre-scripting.” This involves anticipating the challenges and objections one might face and preparing responses in advance. By rehearsing these scripts, individuals build the confidence and competence to voice their values in real-life situations.
People differ in all aspects
In essence, GVV believes that (most) individuals inherently know what is right and wrong. Critics argue that this assumption oversimplifies the complexity of ethical decision-making. It operates on the premise that most individuals already possess an understanding of ethics and integrity. This assumption raises questions about the diversity of moral perspective sand individual differences in moral development. Not everyone may share the same moral values, and quiet a lot of people lack a moral compass. It also does not address the problem that not all people have equally strong values, whilst we know that it is the strength of values that is the best predictor for actual behavior.
More importantly, GVV does not make a distinction between moral values – that are a complex category – and psychological values, that are closely related to motives (what makes people do what they do). According to behavioral sciences, these values are related to personality, and personality cannot be changed in adults. Some values, like religion or family can be moral in the private sphere but not in professional life. People can have moral motives, but also amoral or even immoral motives, like fame, wealth, or an easy life, thus not caring or deliberately doing harm when it comes to striving for self-interest. There is more than enough evidence that so called dark triad traits are not rare – especially when it comes to people in leadership positions. Participants in the dark triad test were more Machiavellian and that we perhaps should not assume a normal distribution. Considering that people who score high on Machiavellianism have a preference for powerful positions, it is unlikely that they will give voice to values, other than when they stand on a stage or are seen ‘acting morally’.
These motives are also found in people with other dark traits, such as communal narcissistic traits: they will frequently talk about morality, how important it is, how they have ‘valued justice ever since they were a child’, they exaggerate their own achievements, and they expect others to recognize their moral superiority. This, however, is not driven by a genuine commitment to ethical principles or the well-being of others. The last dark trait, psychopathy may even be more skilled to moral boasting than the first two. People with psychopathic traits are known for their manipulative and deceptive tactics. Moral boasting can be a tool for them to create a false image of integrity and altruism. By saying that they value integrity, they can deceive others into believing that they are trustworthy and benevolent, thereby gaining social influence. Because of their superficial charm, they can be quite successfull in taking advantage of the goodwill of others and manipulate social situations to their benefit.
The belief that individuals inherently know what is right overlooks the importance of ethical development and education. By underemphasizing ethical analysis and reasoning, GVV may miss opportunities to deepen individuals’ understanding and reflection of ethical principles. It does not provide them the real arguments and underlying knowledge they should be part of any good education. This will make it impossible for them to weigh conflicting values – that will always arise in situations where a good moral compass is needed most! – and other arguments.
Moral muscles do not exist
The metaphor of a ‘moral muscle’ and even a ‘moral muscle memory’ has been derived from kinesthetics (training of real physical muscles). This concept suggests that through practice and repetition, individuals can strengthen their ability to act according to their values, much like building muscle memory through physical repetition. However, when scrutinized through the lens of neuroscience, this does not make much sense. Muscle memory refers to the neurological process where a motor task, through repetition, becomes more automatic and easier to perform. It involves procedural memory, stored in the brain, not the muscles. Moral decision-making, on the other hand, is a complex cognitive process involving reasoning, emotion regulation, and value judgment, which doesn’t fit the mechanism of muscle memory.
Neuroscience reveals that moral decision-making involves a network of brain regions, including the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These regions are associated with executive function, emotional processing, and value-based decision-making. Moral cognition is not a singular, automatic response that can be ingrained as muscle memory but is context-dependent and influenced by various internal and external factors. The brain exhibits plasticity, meaning it can change and adapt based on experiences. While it is possible to develop habits and automatic responses through repetition, moral decisions often require adaptability, reflection, and consideration of nuanced and variable factors. The adaptability and context-dependent nature of moral decision-making contrast with the fixed and automatic nature of muscle memory. In adults, this plasticity is limited to deepening existing ‘paths’, not to creating completely new traits.
Moral decisions often involve complex dilemmas, conflicting values, and ethical considerations. The complexity and variability of moral situations make it challenging to develop a fixed, automatic response akin to muscle memory. Moral decisions often require deliberation, weighing of consequences, and consideration of ethical principles, which are not conducive to automaticity. Ethical reflection and learning are integral to moral development. The process of reflecting on moral values, principles, and dilemmas contributes to moral growth and understanding. This continuous learning and reflection are not aligned with the concept of ingraining a fixed response as muscle memory. This is also another argument why specially children and young adults should not just be trained in GVV, but in the full package, including discussing moral dilemmas and social values.
Safe cultures are rare
GVV ignores the fact that speaking out, even in a ‘diplomatic scripted’ way is not save in most organizations. The focus on individual agency in voicing values may overlook the structural barriers and power dynamics that constrain ethical action. Individuals, especially those with lower power status, may face significant risks and retaliation when expressing dissenting values. Organizations do not by nature have a speak-up culture. According to various experts, consultants, and trainers, this is an organizational culture where employees feel safe and encouraged to express their opinions, voice concerns, ask questions, or address problems without fear of retaliation or negative consequences. The ‘creation’ of this sense of safety, proponents argue, leads to more transparency and the early informal addressing and prevention of integrity issues and the need for whistleblowing.
We all want such a safe organization, but is real safety to speak up about potential misconduct – not just the feeling of it – seriously achievable with prescripting and other GVV methods? Usually not. It can only be achieved, and even then with much effort, if there is already an intrinsic foundation for it within an organization, more specifically among the leaders. GVV may however give people a false sense of safety and confidence that may not be rooted in reality.
There is a connection between GVV, speak-up culture and the popular theory of psychological safety by Amy Edmondson. She developed this as a scientific concept, which is about ‘a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk.’ If they have this belief, feeling, or perception, they feel safe to be themselves, express their opinions, ask questions, make mistakes, and introduce new ideas without fear of retaliation or rejection.
Much like Gentile, Edmondson popularized her work. She provides several best practices for behavioral strategies that leaders can use to promote psychological safety within their teams. She observed these in teams that had a high degree of shared belief in safety. However, she makes a scientific mistake by stating that if leaders mimic the outward behavior, the staff’s belief in safety will increase. Many consultants and trainers who work with her work claim that ‘belief in safety’ is the same as ‘actual safety.’ GVV can also contribute to such overconfidence.
GVV and other theories fail to investigate what culture is and whether there is a safety problem. This partly also applies to the underlying movement of positive psychology. The idea of malleability behind it is exaggerated and can be downright harmful. Positive psychology is also strongly individualistic and not focused on the team or the common good. According to science, it promotes certain personalities – extroverted, dominant, goal-oriented, status-oriented, indeed close to dark triad – to rise even more, while they often cause the problems. It assumes the inherent goodness of man, which is not scientifically substantiated.
False Safety
The most important thing is the risk that GVV, just like speak up and psychological safety are used unethically as a buzzword without making real changes. It is characteristic of a hyperculture and it does not address the simple fact that changing people and their behavior is hard, and changing organizations even harder.
Furthermore, there is a risk of ‘malicious false safety’, promoted by leaders that talk about GVV without intrinsic motivation. There is a risk that it is precisely invoked to suppress criticism or disagreement under the guise of maintaining a safe environment. Organizations and leaders can create an illusion of psychological safety and promote GVV. If employees are encouraged to speak openly and take risks, but are then punished or silenced, this can lead to even greater insecurity.
Protecting whistleblowers in a good manner will always be necessary for the simple reason that GVV and similar programs will only work in organizations that already have an ethical culture. This is why professionalizing this legal an practical field is paramount.
The author, Caroline Raat PhD, LLM, MA studied law, social sciences legal philosophy. She wrote about whistleblower protection and other integrity related issues in peer-reviewed and popular publications for many years. Also, she teaches government agencies, law firms and other professionals about whistleblower law and practice and works as a lawyer in human rights cases.
Mary C. Gentile PhD Reageren
First of all, I want to thank Caroline Raat for her commitment to genuine debate and the development of effective strategies for voicing values effectively in organizations. I am honored at her attention.
However, I wish to address some of the criticisms she makes of my work developing the “Giving Voice To Values” (GVV) approach to values-driven leadership development (www.GivingVoiceToValuesTheBook.com ).
Although Raat is correct that GVV is premised on the idea that we often know what we believe is the right thing to do in a particular situation and it focuses on building the skills, the script, the confidence and the likelihood of acting effectively via rehearsal and peer coaching. However, GVV does not suggest that there are not also many situations where reasonable people of good will and intelligence might legitimately disagree. It simply says that there are many situations where most of us would agree that something is “over the line,” fraudulent, abusive, illegal, etc — but just because most of us may agree on this, does not mean that we would feel confident enough to act and be skillful enough to do so effectively.
Raat also argues that GVV does not distinguish between moral values and psychological values. This is not accurate. There is an entire chapter in the book that talks about the fact that GVV is specifically focussed on moral values — and not the many other values that individuals may hold.
Raat argues that the idea of a “moral muscle memory” is pseudoscience. Well, the term “moral muscle memory” is a metaphor in GVV — but nonetheless, it is based on research in psychology, cognitive science and behavioral ethics that suggests that we tend to act automatically, emotionally when we confront values conflicts — and then tend to rationalize post-hoc that what we chose to do was “right” or perhaps the “only thing we could do.” So the idea is to provide an exercise that is “post-decision making” — in GVV parlance, it is the “GVV Thought Experiment” — where we give learners the opportunity to work on action plans and arguments that could be effective to answer the question “WHAT IF I were going to act on a particular values-based position (as presented in a case scenario)….How could I be successful?”
The idea is not to ask the learner “what would you do?” without first giving them the opportunity to work with their peers to develop strategies, tactics, arguments, “options” that could be effective. And GVV shares many examples (disguised) of different approaches actual individuals have tried to do just that.
Raat argues that GVV ignores the organizational cultures that tend to punish “whistle blowers” but in fact, GVV is NOT about “whistle blowers”. GVV was developed precisely because the experiences of many whistle blowers is negative. That is not to say that blowing the whistle is not sometimes necessary (e.g., high stakes, short time frames) but GVV was developed to help individuals raise issues early, before blowing the whistle becomes the only option, and to help individuals learn to frame their approaches in ways that are more likely to be effective and to avoid retaliation because they take into account all the other communication skills, negotiation skills, problem re-framing skills, influence skills and so on that organizational actors try to develop. Instead of viewing ethical challenges as purely cognitive challenges — “what is the right thing to do?” — GVV enables to equip individuals to be more effective, more skillful, more confident to raise issues successfully when they already believe they know what is ethical in a particular situation.
Finally, GVV is a PEDAGOGICAL approach — it was developed because too often the way we taught ethics in business schools and in organizations could unfortunately result in a sort of “schooling for sophistry” because the focus was entirely on applying different and appropriately conflicting ethical models of reasoning to a particular situation. GVV does not suggest that developing ethical awareness and ethical analysis skills is not important; on the contrary, it is essential. GVV rather suggests that it is incomplete and that one also needs to develop ethical ACTION abilities — and even the habit of speaking and acting on one’s values, but with nuance, sophistication and skill.
Happy to share the many organizations that have used GVV and to share the approaches taken.
Thanks for your time and attention. Mary Gentile
Caroline Raat Reageren
I would like to thank dr. Gentile for her lengthy reply. She confirms that GVV is not about whistleblowing – I wrote that it can be a risk for WB. Her use of ‘moral muscle’ may be only a metaphor, but her ideas on scripting (strengthening the moral muscle by practice) are pseudoscience, or at least based on outdated science or cherrypicking. In this blog I explain why:
https://www.beslisgoed.nl/gedrag-uit-een-potje/#sec-9d3e
(automated translation below)
More importantly, real psychology (HEXACO) acknowledges that:
– integrity is a human trait that cannot be changed in adults;
– integrity as a competence consists of: personality, knowledge, experience and skills;
– and so are characteristics like assertiveness (part of extraversion);
– traits and (psychological (including moral)) values correlate – basic moral values are therefore also largely unchangeable;
– traits are the best predictors for behavior;
– behavior is also very hard to change;
– behavior depends on: personality (including personal values), context, emotion, interaction, situation, and so on.
– statistics show that it is not a majority of people that has solid psychological integrity, especially not leaders:
https://www.beslisgoed.nl/selectie-publieke-moraal/
– giving people non-founded confidence and ‘ethical ACTION abilities’ can be a risk in real life ethically challenging environments, which are sadly enough not rare.
When it comes to moral decisionmaking, Kahneman’s method (structured decisionmaking) are simply much better.
The fact that clients (organizations, students) are satisfied with GVV is not a very reliable indicator for effectiveness.
I will be happy to share all the scientific sources that I have use in my 30 year worklife as a lawyer & organizational scientist, with a PhD in legal philosophy/ethics and socio-legal studies, here’s one on HEXACO:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-023-09900-z.
************
Automated translation: Behavioral Adjustment through Scripting
In many training & coaching sessions, and also in organizational change programs where Leary’s Rose is used, scripting is also employed. This is an approach where individuals are assisted through a predetermined instructions or behaviors to effect desired changes in attitude, responses, or habits.
At its core, scripting is a form of cognitive restructuring, by pre-designing a new behavior pattern that will become a habit or automatic response. In scripts for interpersonal communication, dialogues are devised that will be carried out in real life. This is practiced through mental rehearsal, role-playing, or actual performance in a controlled environment. As a result, people are supposed to feel more comfortable performing the new behavior and overcoming any obstacles before applying it in a real situation.
The idea is that current behavior is systematically adjusted to the desired behavior, thereby eliminating fear or uncertainty – reluctance to act. After all, people often tend to fall back into old behaviors, especially under pressure or in stressful situations. By practicing and experiencing success in a controlled environment, they are supposed to build confidence in their ability to display the new behavior at the crucial moment. Moreover, through scripting, people are assumed to reflect on their actions and their consequences, promoting self-awareness, which is essential for sustainable behavioral change.
Scripting Doesn’t Work
Rigid application of scripting can lead to a mechanical takeover of behavior that feels unnatural because it doesn’t fit the individual and the specific situation. Scripting does not sufficiently take into account natural resistance to change, or the fact that in interactions and groups, others do not simply change along. It’s a mechanistic, behavioristic approach where human behavior is reduced to a series of input-output reactions. This does not correspond with the variation and spontaneity inherent in human interaction.
A fundamental point of criticism is the lack of peer-reviewed empirical research supporting the effectiveness of scripting. Much of the literature promoting scripting is anecdotal in nature, derived from self-help texts without scientific evidence, or from scientists or practitioners who work with the method themselves, and thus are insufficiently impartial. Even in cases where effectiveness has been demonstrated, it often concerns short-term results. Although scripting can lead to immediate behavioral change, sustainable change is rare.
Scripting is often too specific, especially for application in interpersonal behavior. It focuses on rehearsed scenarios, preventing people from being able to apply the learned behaviors flexibly in real life. Genuine human behavior and interaction are complex and context-dependent. Moreover, people are not actors who can simply perform a new behavioral repertoire. Our behavior is influenced by unconscious processes, emotions, and deeply rooted beliefs that are not easily adjustable.
Scripting undermines the authenticity of personal expression. By following a prescribed script, there is a risk that individuals may approach situations in an alienated way, which can harm their relationships and self-perception. There is also a risk that people become dependent on scripts, diminishing their ability to respond flexibly in unpredictable situations. This will lead to more uncertainty and problems when someone is confronted with situations outside the script. Furthermore, scripting can be manipulative, teaching people how to influence or control others through carefully constructed interactions. This raises moral questions about the method.
Like Leary’s Rose and various other “change methods,” scripting ignores the fact that behavior is only limitedly malleable, and that not all people will or can exhibit all types of behavior. The risk is that if this fails, it only makes people more insecure and self-critical. This is especially the case in contexts of power inequality, where the subordinate party will suffer psychological damage. Methods using scripting are therefore unethical in several respects.
Christopher Giofreda Reageren
Dr. Gentile,
I hope you are well. I am about to teach GVV in an introductory course called “Moral Arguments with STEM.” Your exchange with Caroline Raat was interesting, and I thank you both for that.
My question concerns the deployment of GVV to folks who are not disposed to accept your arguments against relativism. If it is your assumption that they will naturally do what works, then I suppose I just need to teach them that they can do more good things through objective morality than through relativism? What do you think of this angle?
Perhaps a good plan is to begin with “A Tale of Two Stories,” and “Founding Assumptions”? I hope to use Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People” to show how even seemingly zero-sum games have better solutions than we can anticipate before scripting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
For further background, if it helps, the students are generally cognitive realists and moral relativists, a combination that makes me think that they are ethical non-cognitivists.
I want to thank you for your tireless devotion to this curriculum.
– Christopher Giofreda