Go back to overview >> readme
When speaking about values, we think about preferences, ideals and characteristics which we think are important.
The articulation of GRID VALUES are important for the self-reflection of the group and to position ourselves related to topics we work with. Furthermore, with the values we articulate what we implicitly expect from us and others. But not with the intention to say, that each of us lives 100% after these values. No, the list values shall not be used to judge others or pretend being a moral instance. It shall be used to identify issues, to raise questions, to share discussions.
The sum of all values and the order of values does not have to represent the view of any individual of the GRID. The values have be understood as the best collection we came up with, based on the individual contribution and based on what the group discussed so far. This also means, that the list of values should not be understood as a final statement.
Values are no items of the GRID AGENDA, but based on the values we assess and discuss which areas we see relevant for the agenda.
tbd
The values are of implicit relevance and typically not applied to explicit usage. That also means, values are blurry in regards to their direct, practical usage. Values are describing a 'high' level, are vague in the details, and not very precise connected to their direct application. For example, if your top-value would be integrity, then what exactly does this mean to you in daily life? This is hard to determine. But what we can say is, that if integrity would be one of your top values, then this would affect your behaviour in a certain way. So values are not free of direct relevance, but they are not really practical and precise enough in the details.
That's why the values cannot be measured on a quantitative scale or normalized towards an expected behaviour. But implicitly, the values help us to discuss on a qualitative scale, what we think is good or bad, right or wrong, important or not.
Based on context related discussions, derivations of a more detailed differentiation are possible. For instance, let's take the integrity example again and ask, what does integrity mean for the relation between an employee and her/his employer? Then quickly the additional context allows many associations with real-life problems, a mindset or existing normative behaviour pattern.
So, values can only become usefully applied in a certain context. The minimal context is the subjective context. If one says that the most important value would be integrity, then the person saying this is doing so in a certain context, which is hidden for others. Only the explanation will potentially un-hide the context and allows others to react.
The minimal context for all values in the GRID, is connected to the GRID.
As such, the practical use can be leveraged by setting the value-context to areas like collaboration, utopical approaches, decentral organization etc.
The wider context implicitly is the human world. Our environment, the way we spend our time, what we build, how our future could look like etc.
So the pracitcal use of GRID values is still blurry, but together with the sum of GRID AGENDA items and initiatives it can be assessed.