4 Values

Brad C. Anderson

Learning Objectives

In this chapter, you will learn the following.

  • What values are
  • Why organizations seldom discuss values
  • Types of values
  • Why we have so many different kinds of values
  • How different values interact

 

Should publicly-funded universities cut programs that lose money? In publicly-funded systems, taxpayers pay for universities. The populace entrusts administrators of these universities with the responsibility to use taxpayer money productively. Losing money signals one of two things. Either the program is failing to generate enough value to attract students, or it is so inefficient that its expenses outstrip incoming revenue. Either way, financial losses suggests the university is wasting taxpayer money. If we allowed all of society to run with such inefficiency, it would collapse.

On the other hand, publicly funded universities are non-profit organizations. Taxpayers are not shareholders in public institutions. They are customers. They do not fund universities in hopes that these schools turn a profit, but with the expectation that they will deliver a societal benefit. In many universities, for example, undergraduate science departments struggle to remain profitable, whereas most business programs make money. This struggle is not because there is no demand for science, nor because administrators run science programs inefficiently. Teaching people to become scientists requires labs, which are expensive to run. The science student pays the same tuition as the business student, but the science department incurs the additional cost of maintaining laboratories while business departments do not. What price would society pay if we let our focus on profits and sustainability lead us to eliminate science training?

This problem is an example of a conflict between values. As you will learn later in this chapter, cutting unprofitable programs speaks to values of accountability, productivity, and sustainability. Maintaining costly programs for their societal benefit, conversely, speaks to the value of public interest.

As you gain an awareness of values, you will come to see that such dilemmas occur frequently. Difficulties caused by opposing values are some of the most pernicious challenges we face, and they are challenging for at least two reasons. The first challenge arises from the reality there is merit to both sides of the argument. Our society cannot choose one side without compromising its values elsewhere. Secondly, we often fail to recognize that tensions between different yet equally important values are the cause of many disagreements. People find themselves on one side of an argument and become blind to the importance of the values driving their opponents.

Values guide wise action. Those aspiring to act wisely, therefore, need to develop an ability to manage the above dynamics well. To develop this competency, this chapter will examine what values are and then review examples of different values. It will then discuss ways differing values interact in social settings and study the ways organizations deal with value conflicts.

What Are Values?

Values describe the ends (i.e., the goals) we wish to achieve and the means (i.e., the methods) we are willing to use to achieve them.[1][2][3] Values, in short, guide the actions of individuals. When individuals come together to create organizations, they do so with the intent that the organization will implement a set of values. That is, people create an organization to pursue a goal and define the means it will use towards that end.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Values describe the ends we pursue and the means we find appropriate to achieve those ends
  • Values guide the actions of individuals and organizations

Even though values guide human activity individually and in organizations, you seldom hear values discussed in our education system or debated within the offices of organizations. Once you become sensitized to the values underpinning human action, you will see that the most significant debates of our time are, at their core, debates about values. Despite this, you seldom hear a discussion about the values informing each side of the discussion.

Why do we Avoid Discussing Values?

As the following example demonstrates, you may find when you start talking about values openly in your organization, other people might dismiss your concerns. 

 

Resistance to Discussing Values – Part 1: A Personal Example[4]

Several years ago, as I was organizing a research study on organizational wisdom, I had a phone conversation with a senior executive of a healthcare organization. For my research, I wanted to interview her and other members of her staff. I explained that I was interested in researching how values influenced organizational behavior.

As soon as I mentioned values, she began to withdraw from the conversation. “We are a very business-minded organization,” she said. “I’m not sure your focus on values aligns with our needs.”

I quickly rephrased. “Think of values as objectives. Different groups in your organization have different objectives, and managers need to reconcile them.”

Replacing values with objectives caught her attention. “Oh yes,” she said, “that sounds interesting.” Why did the change in name work? We will see shortly.

 

To understand why Western society seldom discusses values, we must distinguish between two ways of thinking: instrumental-rationality and value-rationality. Through instrumental-rationality, individuals make objective, logical calculations to achieve goals efficiently, maximize self-interest, or apply rules and laws.[5] Whereas instrumental rationality tells us how to achieve an end, it does not help us determine which end is worth achieving. For this, we require value-rationality.[6] Rather than relying on impersonal rules or means-ends calculations, value rationality emphasizes the role of values in guiding action.[7]

Since the in the Eighteenth Century, Western societies have venerated the impartial logic of instrumental-rationality.[8] Consequently, throughout our education system, instrumental-rationality dominates. Business education focuses on impartial economic calculations, science on the objective use of the scientific method, medicine on the rational application of interventions to fix dysfunctional biological systems, and so on. The result is a society trained to apply logical problem-solving to resolve issues. Since values are , the deeper an individual is immersed in instrumental-rationality, the more likely they are to view value-rationality as ‘irrational.’[9] This attitude has given Western society a great capacity to figure out how to do things, but it leaves us with a deficit in determining what is worth doing.[10]

 

Resistance to Discussing Values – Part 2: A Personal Example

Why did replacing the word values with objectives work to retain the interest of the senior executive to whom I was talking?

Business education teaches students that it is the job of managers to assign objectives to their staff. They then apply impartial metrics to assess whether employees are achieving their goals. Even though you could argue objectives and values are similar (they both define desired ends to achieve), the word ‘values’ seldom appears in business lectures. Profit-maximization is assumed to be the goal of businesses, and so executives set objectives for managers that maximize profits. Business students learn several tools of instrumental-rationality to achieve those objectives.

Even though profit-maximization is itself a value, those trained in a business mindset see values as unbusinesslike. Recall the response of the senior executive to my mention of values. “We are a very business-minded organization. I’m not sure your focus on values aligns with our needs.” To retain her interest and engage her in a discussion of values, I had to camouflage values using closely related business terms.

Many different industries will likely have similar responses when you try to engage them in a discussion of values.

Key Takeaways

  • Discussing values is uncommon
  • Due to the subjective nature of values, those deeply ingrained in see as irrational
  • This may create challenges for those who wish to address the values guiding human action.

Types of Values

As this section will show, there is a broad array of values that guide human behavior. Societies are complex, and this complexity is represented in the network of values societies honor. It is impractical (and perhaps impossible) to list every value that every society pursues. Instead, this textbook presents two frameworks that researchers have developed to categorize values. The first is a framework for public sector values, and the second is a framework for political values.

That this textbook presents these two frameworks does not imply they are universal in every culture. Nor does it mean these frameworks are the only ones through which to understand values. They are presented to begin a discussion on the variety of values active in society. In life, the onus is on you to learn about the social settings you live and work in to identify the values people pursue.

A Framework of Public Sector Values

Torben Beck Jørgensen and Barry Bozeman studied public sector publications from a variety of countries. From these sources, they developed an inventory of values pursued by these nations’ public sectors.[11] The following sections summarize the values they observed. Note, however, this and later studies focused predominantly on European and Anglo-Saxon cultures, though they did include Turkey, South Korea, South Africa, and the United Nations in the following studies.[12] The values they saw were reflective of those cultures and may inadequately express values that different cultures honor. Other cultures and even sub-groups within a culture may pursue different values entirely. The values described below may be a useful guide, but they are not a replacement for taking the time to understand the unique values prevalent in the social settings in which you operate.

The values they observed fell into seven categories:

  • Contribution to society
  • Transformation of interests to decisions
  • Relationship between administrators and leaders
  • Relationship between administrators and the environment
  • aspects of administration
  • Behavior of employees
  • Relationship between administrators and citizens

Contribution to Society

The category of contribution to society contains several values, including:

  • The common good (public interest, social cohesion)
  • Altruism (human dignity)
  • Sustainability (voice of the future)
  • Regime dignity (regime stability)

Transformation of Interests to Decisions

Several values are active when transforming peoples’ interests into decisions.

  • Majority rule (democracy, will of the people, collective choice)
  • User democracy (local governance, citizen involvement)
  • Protection of minorities (protection of individual rights)

Relationship Between Administrators and Leaders

The following values guide the relationship between administrators and leaders.

  • Loyalty (accountability, responsiveness)

Relationship Between Administrators and the Environment

These values reflect the relationship between administrators and their operating environment.

  • Openness-secrecy (responsiveness, listening to public opinion)
  • Advocacy-neutrality (compromise, balancing of interests)
  • Competitiveness-cooperativeness ( or value)

Intra-organizational Aspects of Administration

The following values inform intra-organizational aspects of administration

  • Robustness (adaptability, stability, reliability, timeliness)
  • Innovation (enthusiasm, risk-readiness)
  • Productivity (effectiveness, )
  • Self-development of employees (good working environment)

Behaviour of Employees

The following values guide the behaviour of employees.

  • Accountability (professionalism, honesty, moral standards, ethical considerations, integrity)

Relationship Between Administrators and Citizens

These values inform the relationship between administrators and citizens of society

  • Legality (protecting rights of individuals, equal treatment, the rule of law, justice)
  • Equity (reasonableness, fairness, professionalism)
  • Dialogue (responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, citizen’s self-development)
  • User orientation (timeliness, friendliness).

Not all nations, cultures, and institutions pursue all values equally. For example, research shows the Canadian public sector places a high priority on the importance of openness; South Korea does not. On the other hand, the South Korean public sector emphasizes the value of robustness more than Canada.[13]

In many organizational contexts, people may operate under specific values, but they will never explicitly state those values. They may have never thought about values, and so act unaware of the values that are unconsciously guiding them. In other instances, people may state they operate according to one value, but their actions suggest they are pursuing different values. Thus, you may need to intuit their values through their deeds and clarify them through dialogue.

 

Exercises

In British Columbia, Canada, hospitals in major metropolitan areas suffered from overcrowding and congestion. Wait times in emergency rooms skyrocketed while patients lined hallways because the number of rooms was insufficient. The government instructed senior managers of hospitals to focus their efforts on ‘decongestion’ (that is, moving patients through the hospital quickly to reduce the number of patient in hallways).[14]

  1. Looking at the list of values above, which values are implied in the directive to focus on decongestion? (Hint, several values are operating, not just one)

A Framework of Political Values

Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues developed a framework of values to explain differences between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. They developed this framework in the United States of America but have since tested it across many cultures.

The following video presents an overview of this framework, while the subsequent paragraphs present a written summary of this framework. Though the video describes five value categories, Dr. Haidt later added a sixth, which the following written description includes.

 

 

The following list presents the six categories of values:[15]

  • Care/harm: This value encompasses our attitudes towards caring for others and our responses to people who cause harm.
  • Fairness/cheating: Fairness represents equality (equal outcome) or proportionality (a person’s outcome matches their contribution). These values represent our attitudes towards fairness and how we view cheaters.
  • Loyalty/betrayal: This value captures our attitudes about people who show allegiance towards a group they belong to as well as those whose actions undermine the group.
  • Authority/subversion: This value encodes our view about showing respect to hierarchical relationships.
  • Sanctity/degradation: This value captures our attitudes towards purity. Here, purity is defined broadly, including freedom from disease, contamination, pollution, or however individuals or groups define such things.
  • Liberty/oppression: This value informs our perceptions of when it is appropriate to use force to control the actions of others.

These values are active in all humans. The importance individuals assign to each value differs, however. Dr. Haidt mapped these differences along political lines to explain why politics can be so divisive. Most people view the values of care and fairness as necessary. People who identify themselves as liberals, however, define fairness as equality, whereas conservatives view it as proportionality. People describing themselves as conservative tend to hold the values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity in high esteem while liberals assign them a low priority. Libertarians, who can be either liberal or conservative, tend to prioritize the value of liberty.

The above sections demonstrate we can view values in multiple ways. Remember, there is no single “right” framework to understand values. Different frameworks seek to explain different behaviors. For example, the public sector framework seeks to understand how public sectors operate; the political framework addresses why politics can be so divisive. Importantly, different cultures may possess disparate value systems.

When interacting with different groups, it is important to recognize the values guiding your behavior as well as the values the other group pursues. Understanding where your values overlap and differ from theirs is an important first step to creating a productive relationship.[16]

After reading this section, you may wonder why human society has so many different values guiding its behavior. The next section explores that question.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Different cultures may venerate different values
  • Several frameworks organize and describe the values in our society
  • A framework of public sector values seeks to understand the role values play in the public sector. This framework identifies several values and places them into the following categories:
    • Contribution to society
    • Transformation of interests to decisions
    • Relationship between administrators and leaders
    • Relationship between administrators and the environment
    • Intraorganizational aspects of administration
    • Behavior of employees
    • Relationship between administrators and citizens
  • A framework of political values seeks to understand why politics is so divisive. This framework identifies six values:
    • Care/harm
    • Fairness/cheating
    • Loyalty/betrayal
    • Authority/subversion
    • Sanctity/degradation
    • Liberty/oppression
  • If you wish to create productive relations, first understand the values guiding your behavior and then seek to understand the values guiding other people’s behaviors.

Why Do We Have so Many Values?

As the above sections demonstrate, many values guide human behavior. Since differing values can be the source of conflict, one might wonder why we have so many. One reason may be that social systems are complex and require the expression of a multiplicity of values to thrive.[17][18] To explore this idea, let’s return to the example we opened this chapter regarding whether or not publicly-funded universities should cut programs that lose money.

Using the framework for public sector values, maintaining a costly program that provides a benefit to society expresses the value of public interest. Acting in the public interest is essential. Through the expression of this value, we create institutions that improve our quality of life. Universities educate the next generation in the skills and ideas they need to prosper and maintain society.

On the other hand, canceling programs that lose money express values of accountability, productivity, and sustainability. We hire administrators to oversee the use of the money we give them, and we depend on their trustworthiness. Thus, the value of accountability, where administrators feel the obligation to act in the best interests of taxpayers, is essential for the system to function. The value of productivity ensures taxpayers receive the maximum benefit for the funding they provide. Taking action to pursue the value of sustainability ensures that not only will universities exist today, but for future generations as well.

Creating universities that benefit society today and in the future requires the realization of ALL these values. The question, however, of what to do when a university program loses money puts these values in conflict. It is the job of stakeholders in the university to decide how to resolve that conflict to maintain the benefits universities provide. As you might imagine, balancing conflicting values can be very hard to do.

The above example creates the illusion that different values will always conflict. This is untrue. Values can also combine positively. In the above case, one might argue that the value of productivity is a way to advance the public interest. Through productivity, the university uses funds in the most productive way possible. This value allows society to receive the maximum benefit with minimal tax dollars. The tax dollars saved may then be used elsewhere to society’s interest.

Thus, though sometimes values conflict, other times they reinforce one another. The following section explores the ways values interact.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Social systems are complex
  • Complex social systems require the pursuit of many different values to thrive

The Ways Values Interact

The previous section demonstrated that values do not act in isolation but instead interact. This section looks at three ways values may interact through exploring terminal versus instrumental values, incompatible and incommensurate values, and the effect of time on values.

Terminal Versus Instrumental Values

The previous section ended with an example of how the value productivity may contribute to the value of public interest. Through productively allocating resources, society maximizes the benefit for minimal cost. People may then use the dollars saved elsewhere. If you think about this dynamic, you will realize that both values are not equal. The value of productivity is used to achieve public interest. That is, rather than pursuing productivity as an end in itself, it is a means to achieve a different end.

We pursue some values as ends in themselves. That is, we pursue them simply because we believe they are worth pursuing. These are called . We enact other values not as ends in themselves, but as a way to achieve a terminal value. These are called .[19]

 

For better or worse, terminal values have several names that you will find in other sources. Other common names for terminal values include and . Instrumental values, conversely, tend to be called instrumental values regardless of the source.

 

Defining values as either terminal or instrumental is a tricky process. A value that is terminal in one situation may be instrumental in another. In yet another situation, it may be terminal and instrumental simultaneously. For example, a medical scientist may perform research in an attempt to cure a disease. Here, the scientist pursues the value innovation (performing research) to achieve public interest (curing a disease). Innovation is an instrumental value, while public interest is terminal. At the same time, the scientist may also perform research simply because they are curious about how the world works. Here, they pursue innovation as an end in itself–a terminal value. In this context, innovation is both a terminal and instrumental value.

No one ever accused humans of being easy to understand.

The following example explores the utility of distinguishing between terminal and instrumental values.

 

Why Care About Terminal Versus Instrumental Values?[20]

A small group of researchers in a Canadian healthcare authority wanted resources to investigate a lifestyle intervention that delayed the onset of frailty in senior citizens. The vice presidents of their organization were dealing with crisis-levels of overcrowding in hospitals, and so felt they had no resources to spare to help the researchers. The vice presidents, thus, declined to help the researchers.

Using the public sector values listed above, what values were at play?

Researchers:

  • Investigating a new treatment to delay frailty implies the value of innovation.

Vice presidents

  • Focusing resources on managing overcrowded hospitals implies values of robustness and sustainability.

The researchers were unhappy with this situation. They truly felt their investigation had the potential to improve the quality of life for senior citizens, but they needed the help of vice presidents to make it a reality. So, they asked themselves why each party was pursuing their respective values.

Researchers:

  • Innovation was a means to improve the quality of life of senior citizens. Their terminal value was public interest (improving the lives of seniors). Innovation was an instrumental value to achieve public interest.

Vice presidents

  • Robustness and sustainability were means to ensure hospitals continued to operate and meet the healthcare needs of the populace. Their terminal value was public interest (meeting the healthcare needs of the people). Robustness and sustainability were instrumental values to achieve public interest.

It turns out that both the researchers and vice presidents were pursuing the same terminal value of public interest. The cause of their conflict was each group used different instrumental values in pursuit of public interest. They were not enemies, but allies, each tasked with fighting a different battle in the same war.

Armed with this understanding, the researchers modified how they approached the vice presidents. They emphasized the same shared terminal value of public interest. They then explained how their efforts could help the vice presidents. They reasoned that by successfully investigating how to reduce frailty (innovation), the populace would become healthier and place fewer demands on hospitals, thereby reducing overcrowding (robustness and sustainability). Under this line of reasoning,

  • Innovation was instrumental to the values of robustness and sustainability, and
  • Innovation, robustness, and sustainability were instrumental to the value of public interest.

The researchers argued that by working together, they could create a healthier population of senior citizens and reduce hospital overcrowding. With this approach, vice presidents started to become excited about supporting the researchers.

THE LESSON: If different people or groups share the same terminal value, you can often use this to find a way to work together even when instrumental values conflict.

Incompatible and Incommensurate Values

As earlier sections described, any social setting of sufficient complexity requires the pursuit of multiple values to thrive. This can lead to tricky dilemmas because there are situations where different values are either incompatible or incommensurate.[21]

  • Incompatible values occur where achieving one value leads to compromising another value. For example, a teacher may decide to grade the class on a curve, leading the students to compete against each other for top grades (value = competitiveness). This competitive dynamic may then undermine the teacher’s attempts to run a group project where teams of students must work together (value = cooperation). Though the teacher may want to teach students how to work together, the competitive dynamic she established may discourage students from collaborating.
  • Incommensurate values occur where values have no basis of comparison. One does not undermine the other, nor do they positively reinforce each other. They are unrelated. For example, a group of administrators at a university may be deciding how to allocate their budget for the year. One administrator wants to spend their budget on staff training (value = self-development of employees). Another administrator wishes to spend it on a new self-serve kiosk for students to manage their registration (value = user orientation).

There are several tactics organizations use to resolve conflicts between incompatible and incommensurate values. These tactics include:[22][23][24]

  • Firewalls: The organization tasks different departments with the pursuit of different values.
  • Cycling: One set of values dominate. Over time, resistance grows until a new set of values become dominant.
  • Casuistry: Individuals rely on experience with similar conflicts to resolve current ones.
  • Bias: One set of values falls out of favor.
  • Hybridization: Individuals attempt to reconcile competing values.
  • Incrementalism: Individuals slowly favor one value over time.
  • Compromise: Competing values each sacrifice some of their aims to accommodate the other value.

The Impact of Time Scale on Values

Values may also interact across time.[25] An action that you take today to achieve a value in the present may affect your ability to achieve that value in the future. To explore this, let’s return to the previous example of medical researchers investigating how to reduce frailty in senior citizens.

 

The impact of time scales on values[26]

Recall from the earlier example of how researchers approached vice presidents to obtain their support for their investigation of how to reduce frailty. One of the values guiding vice presidents’ actions was robustness. That is, they wanted to ensure hospitals could deal with the number of patients, which was something they were struggling to achieve. The problem of overcrowding was severe enough that it took all the resources the vice presidents had to deal with it. When the researchers came asking for help, the vice presidents initially felt that splitting their resources with the researchers would compromise their ability to strengthen the robustness of the system.

The researchers then argued that if they could delay frailty in seniors, then those seniors would be healthier and could avoid trips to the hospital. By reducing the number of people going to the hospital, the researchers’ efforts could contribute to enhancing the system’s robustness.

Note that this impact, however, would occur in the future. If the researchers were successful, it would take years before their program was incorporated sufficiently into the community for it to have a noticeable effect. The vice presidents faced overcrowding now. The researchers’ had a solution that would take effect in the future.

Should the vice presidents take resources away from their efforts to enhance the system’s robustness today to improve future robustness? Or should they sacrifice future robustness to solve today’s problem? Was there some way they could achieve both?

The time scale over which people’s actions took effect put the value of (future) robustness in conflict with (current) robustness.

Key Takeaways

  • Values interact in multiple ways
  • Terminal values are those pursued as ends in themselves
  • Instrumental values are those pursued as a means to an end
  • Incompatible values are those where achieving one undermines the ability to achieve another
  • Incommensurate values are unrelated
  • The time scale over which different actions work can create value dilemmas

Values Guide Wise Action

This chapter explored the social of values. Values define the ends we find worth achieving and the means we feel are appropriate to achieve those ends. Despite the importance of values in guiding human behavior, many institutions in Western society avoid addressing them explicitly due to their preference for . This over-reliance on instrumental-rationality leads people to view as ‘irrational’ due to its subjective nature.  Humans, however, are subjective creatures. To understand human activity, we must understand the values guiding it.

There are many frameworks to understand values. This chapter introduced two: a framework for public sector values, and another for political values. As shown in these frameworks, many values guide human behavior. This is because societies are complex, and so they need the expression of many values to thrive. Consequently, people often find that values interact with each other in complex ways. Values may be or . They may be incompatible or . The time scales over which actions operate may put values in conflict with each other.

Values guide wise action. Thus, individuals in organizations that aspire to act wisely must gain an awareness of how values enable and constraint action and develop skills in managing the varied ways that values interact.

Next, because knowledge is required but insufficient for wise action, this textbook will explore the social structure of rationality.

 

In This Chapter, You Learned

What values are

  • Values describe the ends we pursue and the means we find appropriate to achieve those ends
  • Values guide the actions of individuals and organizations

Why organizations seldom discuss values

  • Discussing values is uncommon
  • Due to the subjective nature of values, those ingrained in instrumental-rationality see value-rationality as irrational
  • This dynamic may create challenges for those who wish to address the values guiding human action.

Types of values

  • Different cultures may venerate different values
  • Several frameworks organize and describe the values in our society
  • A framework of public sector values seeks to understand the role values play in the public sector. This framework identifies several values and organizes them into these categories:
    • Contribution to society
    • Transformation of interests to decisions
    • Relationship between administrators and leaders
    • Relationship between administrators and the environment
    • Intraorganizational aspects of administration
    • Behavior of employees
    • Relationship between administrators and citizens
  • A framework of political values seeks to understand why politics is so divisive. This framework identifies six values:
    • Care/harm
    • Fairness/cheating
    • Loyalty/betrayal
    • Authority/subversion
    • Sanctity/degradation
    • Liberty/oppression
  • To create productive relationships, first, understand the values guiding your behavior and then seek to understand the values guiding other people’s behaviors

Why we have so many different types of values

  • Social systems are complex
  • To thrive, complex social systems require the pursuit of many different values

How different values interact

  • Values interact in multiple ways
  • Terminal values are those pursued as ends in themselves
  • Instrumental values are those pursued as a means to an end
  • Incompatible values are those where achieving one undermines the ability to achieve another
  • Incommensurate values are unrelated
  • The time scale over which different actions operate can create value dilemmas

  1. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145–1179.
  2. Townley, B. (2008). Reason’s Neglect: Rationality and Organizing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  3. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
  4. Anderson, B. C. (2019). Values, Rationality, and Power: Developing Organizational Wisdom - A Case Study of a Canadian Healthcare Authority. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  5. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145–1179.
  6. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
  7. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145–1179.
  8. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
  10. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Beck Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An Inventory. Administration & Society, 39, 354–381.
  12. Beck Jørgensen, T., & Sørensen, D.-L. (2013). Codes of Good Governance: National or Global Values? Public Integrity, 15(1), 71–96.
  13. Beck Jørgensen, T., & Sørensen, D.-L. (2013). Codes of Good Governance: National or Global Values? Public Integrity, 15(1), 71–96.
  14. Anderson, B. C. (2019). Values, Rationality, and Power: Developing Organizational Wisdom--A Case Study of a Canadian Healthcare Authority. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  15. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
  16. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
  17. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
  18. Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  19. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics, and Welfare. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  20. Anderson, B. C. (2019). Values, Rationality, and Power: Developing Organizational Wisdom - A Case Study of a Canadian Healthcare Authority. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  21. De Graff, G., Huberts, L., & Smulders, R. (2014). Coping With Public Value Conflicts. Administration & Society, 1–27.
  22. Oldenhof, L., Postma, J., & Putters, K. (2014). On Justification Work: How Compromising Enables Public Managers to Deal with Conflicting Values. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 52–63.
  23. Stewart, J. (2006). Value Conflict and Policy Change. Review of Policy Research, 23, 183–195.
  24. Thacher, D., & Rein, R. (2004). Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy. Governance, 17, 457–486.
  25. Anderson, B. C. (2019). Values, Rationality, and Power: Developing Organizational Wisdom--A Case Study of a Canadian Healthcare Authority. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  26. Anderson, B. C. (2019). Values, Rationality, and Power: Developing Organizational Wisdom--A Case Study of a Canadian Healthcare Authority. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Share This Book