Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/57462
challenging situations, people can speak up about their values and take effective action. sumer products firm. Every time she takes a stand during her career, her actions are feasible for someone at her particular level. In the final case, she draws on all the skills and confi- dence she has developed as she stands up to the chairman of the board over her decision to fire a favored executive. In the debrief of the case, students examine the ten "enablers" that made it possible for her to develop a powerful voice— "enablers" that students can pursue for themselves. Three: Normalizing values conflicts. If students expect to face values conflicts in their careers, they'll understand that these situations are a normal part of business, and they won't be disabled by surprise when conflicts arise. Instead, they'll retain their sense of competency; they'll speak up without freezing or trying to evade the problem altogether. Four: Defining professional purpose. If students accept an explicitly broad definition of their purpose in doing business, they will have more leverage when they confront values con- flicts. They will know that their goals aren't merely to make the next deal or please their bosses, and they can call on a wide set of arguments to make their cases. Five: Understanding the self. Because GVV is built on the idea of appealing to students' strengths—as opposed to preaching about the need to conquer their weaknesses—the program emphasizes self-knowledge and positive alignment with per sonal values. The curriculum includes sample assess- ment tools, including one exercise called "Framing a Life Story," which helps students understand what matters to them and how they define success. Six: Using one's voice. If they're going to speak up about values conflict in the workplace, students must first under- stand that there are different ways to voice their values. For instance, they can make assertions, ask questions, provide new research, try persuasion, negotiate, set examples, or identify allies. They also need to understand that various techniques work better in some circumstances than in others and that they may be more comfortable with one method over another. In addition, they need to learn that the orga- nizational setting and the personal style of the leader could affect what approach they might take to express their val- ues—and even the likelihood that they will speak up at all. Most important, the GVV approach allows students to develop actual scripts and practice voicing their values in front of their peers, using the style of expression that suits them best, and then to receive coaching from their classmates. The premise is that, once they have scripted and spoken their val- ues in the safe classroom setting, they will be more likely to speak up when necessary in the workplace. Seven: Preparing responses. Students learn to anticipate and The GVV program lets students know that, despite the risks and complexities of ethically respond to the typical "reasons and rationalizations" that peers and bosses will give for ethically questionable behavior. One module in the GVV curriculum, "Scripts and Skills," includes a set of short cases, annotated readings about deci- sion-making biases and framing, and teaching plans that help students script responses to frequently heard rationalizations. For instance, in the case called "Naïveté or Boldness?" the COO of a hospital faces a conflict with her CEO over the potential sale of the institution. She believes that the decision is based on inaccurate financial data and that the sale will negatively affect the quality of health services in the region. Her CEO, new to the organization himself and facing an inherited financial crisis, has just appointed her to this senior post, and she does not want him to question her loyalty. She suspects that if she does not get on board, she may have to leave the hospital. The teaching plan for the case delineates many well- demonstrated decision-making biases—such as social proof, false consensus, sunk costs, overoptimism, and self-serving bias—and suggests ways for the COO to turn these to her advantage as she makes her case to the CEO. Students learn that if they understand these biases, they might be able to frame their own positions more persuasively. All of the cases presented in the GVV curriculum are quite brief, usually three pages or less. They do not conclude by asking students what the subjects should do, as most business school cases do. Merely asking that question raises the issue of whether the subjects should act on their values. Instead, BizEd JULY/AUGUST 2008 43 STOCKBYTE/VEER