VALUES: A BRIEF CONTEXT

DR. MARTIN L.W. HALL

MINESSENCE & SYSTEMS, VALUES AND
ORGANIZATIONS

Please only share with the written permission of the Author. The
purpose of this white paper is to put the state of the art of values theory and
values practice in context.
Copyright © 1999-2005 Martin L.W. Hall and SysVal.Org - 1 All Rights Reserved
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VALUES: A BRIEF
CONTEXT..................................................................
1
TABLE OF
CONTENTS................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 1: REVIEW OF VALUES
THEORY................................................................... 4
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................
..... 4
The Context for Understanding Values Theory
........................................................................................ 4
The
Objectivists......................................................................................................................................
6
The Subjectivists
.................................................................................................................................... 7
The Integrationists
................................................................................................................................ 9 Values in an
Integrationist View ............................................................................................................. 10
Review of the Three Perspectives
............................................................................................................. 12
State of the Art in Values
Theory.................................................................................................. 13
Summary............................................................................................................................................
..... 13
CHAPTER 2: CRITIQUE OF VALUES
THEORY....................................... 15
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................
... 15
Comparative Analysis between Values Perspectives and Social
Paradigms......................................... 17
Radical Humanist Paradigm: Quadrant 1 ................................................................................................
17
Interpretivist Paradigm: Quadrant 2 ........................................................................................................
20
Radical Structuralist Paradigm: Quadrant 3 ............................................................................................
23
Functionalist Paradigm: Quadrant 4 ........................................................................................................
26
A ‘Meta’ Values Theory..........................................................................................................................
27
Quadrant 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Quadrant 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Quadrant 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Quadrant 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................
31
CHAPTER 3: VALUES THEORY APPLICATION
ISSUES.................... 32
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................
... 32 Hall-Tonna Values
Theory........................................................................................................................ 33
Value
Patterns....................................................................................................................................... 35
Values and Measurement
................................................................................................................. 36
Processes with Major
Organizations............................................................................................ 38
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................
...... 39
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................
..... 41
CHAPTER 1: REVIEW OF VALUES THEORY
This chapter will provide an historical and epistemological review of
values theories and why they are important. As values theory has developed
over the last 50 years, it has affected and to some degree been integrated
into the understanding of organizational development and culture. Values
theory has moved from an emphasis on the individual to encompass an
understanding of how values underpin culture. This chapter focuses on
values theory as it relates to systems thinking in the context of management
science, particularly in the areas of psychology, organizational psychology,
sociology, and economics.
INTRODUCTION
Values have long been at the heart of religion and philosophy. The
Greek philosophers, who viewed virtues as attributes of human excellence,
proposed a form of values theory and we should realize that this ancient
understanding of virtues was close to the modern view of human values. It
was in the late 1800s, however, that the modern concept of human values
began to take form and values theory began to be clearly defined in the
1950s. In the last 30 years, values and values theory have been seen as
central to human motivation and decision making. A great many disciplines
are now associated with values theory, especially psychology, sociology,
economics, and anthropology. A lot has been written about values from
different disciplinary perspectives, but until the last 30 years, values were
not clearly defined. When values are looked at specifically in the context of
systems thinking and management, the focus is on organizational
psychology, philosophy, economic theory, and sociology.

THE CONTEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING VALUES

THEORY

The word values, as understood in modern times, did not appear until
the late nineteenth century (Nietzsche, 1877). Before that time the term
virtue was used; in modern terminology, virtue has come to mean a subset
of the defined values, especially those related to moral behavior
(MacIntyre, 1984). MacIntyre demonstrated that the understanding of virtue
was narrow and needed to be updated to be consistent with modern culture.
Traditionally, values have been understood to be qualities of excellence
reflected in our decision making through the priorities we choose. The
following questions arise from this perspective:
• Are values conscious or unconscious?
• Are values innate or a result of training?
• Are values chosen by individuals or given by society, in the form of
societal norms such as those associated with religion?
These questions led Frondizi (1971) to conclude that a critical question
associated with values is: Are the values priorities we choose based on
objective or subjective norms?
Copyright © 1999-2005 Martin L.W. Hall and SysVal.Org - 4 All Rights Reserved
Subjectivists Objectivists
Integrationists
Figure 3-1: Frondizi model for categorizing values philosophy
Figure 3-1 describes the views of Frondizi, who argues that the discussion
of values theory historically has fallen into three camps:
• The objectivist view. Objectivists view values as external to the
person, influencing their development and character as a person. Values are
linked to the historical discussion of virtues and are characterized in modern
education as moral or character defining (Kohlberg, 1981). From a systemic
perspective, they introduce regulation, stability, and necessary boundaries.
• The subjectivist view. Subjectivists view values as something that the
individual chooses and that should not be (and are not necessarily)
influenced by outside forces. This orientation holds that people are
responsible for their own lives. The subjectivist view of values was
developed by the existentialists in the late 1800s and continues into this
century with thinkers such as Sartre (1953). The existentialist has a limited
view of systems, seeing them as emerging from individual perspectives and
problematic in the manner in which the system limits individual freedom.
The subjectivist viewpoint became highly developed in the United States in
the 1960s, particularly in education, as the values clarification movement
propounded by Raths, Harmin, and Simons (1966).
• The integrationist view. Integrationists are theorists who have
suggested that the proper understanding of values is a confluent theory that
integrates both of these perspectives, and adding the concept of change and
development as an essential part of any paradigm. Authors such as Beck
and Cowan (1996), Graves (1974), Hall (1986, 1995), and Tonna (1996) are
representative of this point of view.
Values theory has developed out of several disciplines over a long time
period. This chapter will not review the entire historical perspective, but
will attempt to associate the various authors with the three strands
suggested by Frondizi in order to provide a clear understanding of how the
theory has developed.
THE OBJECTIVISTS
In the objectivist view, the priorities by which we guide our lives are
trainable and ought to be mandated by parents and society. An example of
this view of values is the Ten Commandments as laid out in the Torah (see
the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers).
The objectivists belong to a historical tradition that started with Socrates
and Aristotle and developed into their modern counterpart through the work
of the educational psychologist Kohlberg (1981). Values, as they are
understood in modern terms, were first discussed comprehensively by
Socrates through the dialogues of Plato (1952). In these conversations,
Socrates is predominantly concerned about the values of truth and justice in
a world that emphasized power and politics through the discipline of
persuasion via rhetoric. The original words that described what are now
thought of as values saw these as qualities of excellence related to end
states. Simply put, they would be qualities of excellence in a person's life.
Aristotle is considered by some to be the father of modern science, since
he was the first person to look at categories of human existence and name
entities as a way of knowing reality. He categorized the qualities for human
excellence, which through the Latin (virtus) became known in English as
virtues (Aristotle, 1952). For Aristotle, virtues (which we now call values)
were qualities of human and leadership excellence reflected in a person's
behavior through habits and skills. It is worthwhile noting that, for
Aristotle, this manner of thinking is an external reality in that these are sets
of qualities outside oneself to which one must pay attention. It could be
argued that for Socrates there was really no differentiation between the
objective and the subjective. Thomas Aquinas, who saw values as objective
moral behaviors, brought the work of Socrates and Aristotle into the
western philosophical orientation in the 13th century. These views
continued to be reflected in western thought up to and including Kant
(1952), and are still maintained today in an objectivist and rather narrow
definition of values even into recent history. These virtues center on a few
clusters of behaviors and ways of knowing that are believed to bring about
human excellence if they are attended to objectively, and that become
internalized as a person’s capabilities.
With the rise of Christianity and the spirituality of discernment, the
concept of ethical lists such as the Ten Commandments became more
prevalent. St. Paul, as well as Jesus himself, taught constantly that behavior
is a sign of excellence. St. Paul taught this even in the context of
organizational development, encouraging in local congregations behaviors
such as love and peace, but particularly setting faith, hope, and charity as
basic standards (I Cor. 12:13). Thomas Aquinas’s writings, integrating the
Aristotelian concept of virtues with Christianity, proposed a list of 13 or 14
of these qualities of excellence ranging from truth, justice, and patience to
the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity. This development continued
through the work of Locke (1952), who argued that values were culturally
specific; and Hobbes (1952, pp. 635ñ660) and Spinoza (1952), who were
associated with the ideas of values and self-preservation. This lead to the
work of Kant (1952), who related virtue and consciousness to the concepts
of duty and obligation.
Moving to post-modernity, virtues are understood as a narrow subset of
values that a religious group, philosopher, or educator might see as
minimally necessary for human excellence. It is an objectivist view of
values and did not develop much beyond Kant, except that one sees it
reflected in recent modern literature through the work of Covey and
Kohlberg. Covey (1989) notes the seven habits of successful people as
essentially seven virtues necessary for the leader. In summary, it is a
simplified way of looking at human development as underpinned by virtues.
The high point of the objectivist view, and a positive development of it,
came about in the 1960s with the work of Kohlberg (1981). For Kohlberg,
the traditionally named virtues of justice and truth are the highest values, as
they were for Aristotle and Socrates. His insight was that these values
emerge in human behavior through a developmental process, they are
values that are arrived at through a holistic maturation of the human person.
Kohlberg described six stages of development to reach full maturity. To be
able to choose justly, the person must have reached the highest level of
maturity. Following the work of the psychologist Piaget, he noted that, just
as our cognitive skills develop and are nurtured through childhood, so is our
ability to choose right from wrong. For Kohlberg, then, the whole values
question is directly related to the question of moral development and is the
fulfillment of the objectivist orientation.
From a systems perspective, Talcott Parsons’ work on families in the
1950s and 1960s (Parsons and Bales, 1955) showed that it is the norms set
by parents which define the parameters for what the child can and should
value. In his later work, Parsons extends this notion to say that society (and
the organization) sets accepted norms for the adult individual. It is this
perspective on values that set the tone for later authors to discuss the notion
of organizational culture. In his AGIL framework, Parsons discusses the
idea that values lend stability to the adaptive, goal setting, integration, and
latency components of a system. Each of these components is underpinned
by values that find their expression at a systemic level through norms and
roles. In the 1960s and 1970s, critics of Parsons’ work pointed out that if
society sets norms, negative behaviors such as racism might be justifiable.
Recent views of his work have allowed some of the strengths of his ideas in
organizational culture to emerge without accepting the negative
implications of his work. Collins (1988, p. 378) further reinforces the idea
of Parsons’ macroview of the world and the role of values.
THE SUBJECTIVISTS
The rise of existentialism at the end of the 19th century established the
subjectivist approach to values theory. The existentialists believed that the
values of the past were not sufficient to deal with present reality.
Essentially, what is left is the freedom for individuals to create their own
values.
The subjectivist view is that values are the consequence of our priorities
and choices, and that they are separate from external influences. This
perspective emphasizes personal responsibility for one’s actions. For the
existentialist, choosing priorities is an act of valuing. The heart of the
subjectivist view comes from existentialism, which in the post-modernist
view wants to expand the understanding of human freedom, choice, and
decision making. Post-modernists point out that, historically, values and
meaning have always been connected through the philosophical traditions.
Though meaning and values are not exactly equivalent, one cannot have
meaning without values, one is the consequence of the other. Therefore
values are precisely the choosing of significant priorities in our lives. This
movement arose in the early 1800s, first through the work of Kierkegaard
(1980) and later through the work of Nietzsche (1877) and existentialists
such as Heidegger (1962) and Sartre in the 1960s. A clear existentialist
expression of the subjectivist movement can be seen in existential
psychology, in the works of Bugental (1976), May (1977), Oden (1969),
and Yalom (1980).
The existentialist framework claimed to have values at the heart of its
perspective. Nietzsche, in claiming that God is dead, was stating that the
traditional 'values as virtues approach', which we see in the western
Christian tradition, is too narrow. People should be free to make their own
kinds of personal choices.
According to the existential framework, we are born into a world of
anxiety where the very act of being and becoming is the consequence of the
day-to-day priority choices that we make. Choosing and acting are critical
and central to the process of becoming human, and choosing priorities is a
valuing process. Choosing and acting, then, the existentialist claim, in
relationship to making choices that produce human intimacy and belonging,
are at the root of what is meaningful in human beings. The existentialists
established that there is a relationship between values and human
development. For this reason, through the works of Binswanger (1967),
Oden (1969), and Bugental (1976), the existentialist view lent itself readily
to application in the field of psychotherapy, particularly in the United
States.
The high point of the existentialist view in the field of human
development was the work of Rogers (1970), who emphasizes that it is
process rather than content that brings about healing, an approach that was
very popular in the 1960s.
Through the work of Raths, Harmin, and Simons (1966), the subjectivist
and existential view of values is directly connected to valuing as decision
making. In this approach, Raths, Harmin, and Simons note that values really
have no content but are simply the processes within which we involve
ourselves. Further, they argued that, in order to be able to choose a value, an
individual must go through seven processes, which are basic to any act of
deciding. These are as follows: (1) choosing freely, (2) choosing from
among alternatives, (3) choosing [from] after thoughtful consideration of
the consequence of each alternative, (4) prizing and cherishing the choice,
(5) affirming the choice publicly, (6) acting upon the choices publicly, and
finally, (7) repeating the choices in day-to-day behavior. Their work
strongly affected education in North America, but was finally put aside
because of its inability to cope with the complex moral issues facing young
people.
Existentialists succeeded in doing two things: First, they reinforced the
position that values are basically expressed through human behavior and are
something that should become habitual and require decision-making skills.
Secondly, they trivialized the idea of content, such that it was as if choosing
a hair spray or underarm deodorant was as important as making decisions
concerning justice. The existentialists say more than other theorists do
about the relationship of values to decision making, and they were the high
point of the subjectivist movement. However, because of the inadequate
underpinnings of this orientation, they fell into disfavor with the
educational establishment.
THE INTEGRATIONISTS
The choice of values priorities has much to do with the ability of an
individual to make consistent choices that affect their behavior. It should
not be surprising that modern psychology, which is concerned with the
measurement of behavior, has been associated with a discovery of a
methodology for measuring values. This work began in the 1920s with
Hartman (1967) and Allport (1951), and continued through the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s through the work of Freire (1972), Maslow (1971),
Graves (1974), and Rokeach (1979). The work has most recently been
carried on by Beck and Cowan (1996), Hall (1986, 1995), and Tonna
(1996).
A parallel but equally important development was the emergence of
anthropology and sociology, which recognized that values underpin group
culture. Of particular importance is the work of Kluckholm (1951) and
Parsons and Shils (1951) in the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, values
theory has been integrated into organizational science and the fields of child
and adult education. Hall (1994), Graves (1974), Beck and Cowan (1996),
Savage (1996), Deal and Kennedy (1982), and Collins and Porras (1994)
are all examples of this integrationist point of view.
Basically, the integrationists’ approach has the following characteristics:
• The work of anthropology, sociology, and psychology are integrated into a
unified understanding of values.
• Values are recognized as the key to understanding individuals and
organizational culture.
• Measurement of values is possible at the individual and organizational
level.
• Human values and economic value are always linked.
The integrationists believe that values are central to individual human
motivation, beliefs, and desires. But these theorists also realized that values
underpin the actions of groups of organizations, systems, and cultures
(Parsons and Shils, 1951).
Not surprisingly, systems and management sciences tend to focus
attention on economics and economic theory by stressing economic rather
than human values. Social psychologists see values, roles, and norms as
integral to any kind of system development, whether it is the person, the
human family, complex organizations, or even culture itself. Values are seen
as an integral part of human behavior expressed as desired ends. The
important thing about this work is that it brought about, for the first time, a
concept of values that was not simply and narrowly moral norms, but as a
much more widely defined motivational source of human behavior as a
whole. We can now turn to a more detailed analysis of one concept of
values from the integrationist perspective.
Values in an Integrationist View
The present understanding of values tends to confuse four related concepts:
value, valuation, values, and valuing.
Value (or Added Value): Value (or added value) is the perceived
consequence of a group valuing process (external perceptions) with the
desired end of creating a valuation. The term value has been used to
describe the worth of an object or service in financial terms.
Valuation: Valuation is the act of putting an economic value on an
external item, where there is some type of economic agreement. This
emerged out of the industrial revolution, when the emphasis was on
financial capital and the ability of people to afford and compare items from
an economic standpoint. In the overall discussion of values theory, it is a
relatively minor aspect, but when research into human values is performed,
references to economic valuing come up, no matter how inappropriate it
might be to the focus of the discussion. In the area of economic theory,
Knight (1994, pp. 111-118) connected values and price by linking human
values and economic values. He was trying to show that people put all
desires in terms of an economic end. Further, he noted that economic value
is really a desired end of the corporation in a community. A problem occurs
when there is a separation between motivation and meaning, since
individual values and organizational values cannot be separated.
Values: In the humanities and in business and organizational theory, it is
understood that:
• Values give meaning to a person’s life.
• Meaning is expressed through the choices and decisions people make, that
is, people only make choices that are meaningful to them.
• Life consists of constantly sorting priorities.
• Values are qualities of excellence that are consequences of meaningful
choices.
All of these characteristics of values describe the process of valuing and
choosing values. For example, the choice between a family reunion versus a
friend’s wedding presents a conflict. If the person goes to the reunion it is a
choice (decision) that affects his or her behavior; this behavior suggests that
family is a priority.
Valuing: Valuing is best described as defining the desired end through a
relationship such as marriage. A good example of this would be the concept
of teamwork; the desired end is created through a relationship. It is the
process of acting on values priorities that one thinks are important, i.e., the
behaviorization of values. If the value is family, then it is putting the family
as a first priority and acting it out.
In modern management theory, a distinction is made between values
identification and understanding which values are important and an
individual’s acting on his or her values (values deployment and
behaviorization of the values). In an organizational setting, Parsons (1957)
would argue that behavior is reflected in the norms, roles, and restraints in
the system, as shown in the organization’s policies, employee manuals, and
business practices, which reinforce certain identified values through
suggesting behavior.
When value, valuation, values, and valuing are seen as distinct and
separate, fragmentation occurs. This fragmentation can cause an
overemphasis on one part of the concept of values; this is most commonly
seen when a focus on economic value is used to define all types of values.
During the 1960s, two other significant writers shifted the
understanding of values: Maslow and Rokeach. Maslow (1970) expanded
the idea of values lists that were present in Aristotle, Socrates, and the
Christian tradition as ethical lists, and listed an updated set of 50 values.
This set contained values such as aliveness, simplicity, perfection, and
wholeness, an approach that reflected the idea of a systemic approach to
reality. Maslow viewed values as virtues, but rather than seeing values as
narrow sets of ideas that must be prescribed for individuals, he saw them as
the underpinning of human behavior itself.
Rokeach (1979) extended the concept of values lists as underpinning
human behavior and developed a list of 36 values. He further categorizes
them: he labeled 18 values as terminal values, which are ends or goals; and
the other 18 he termed instrumental values, or in Aristotle' terms, practical
wisdom. For Rokeach, terminal values were concepts such as inner
harmony, happiness, family security, and equality. Instrumental values were
concepts including intellect, logic, loving, broad-mindedness, and ambition.
This work was important because it took an integrationist approach to
values in the sense that the influences were seen as coming from the
external environment as well as expressing ideas that come from inside the
person. It was an attempt to describe human behavior in terms of an infinite
range of values priorities.
Rokeach’s work is also important because it was based on hundreds of
empirical statistical studies showing both that values are measurable in
themselves, and that they are an important factor in the measurement of
human behavior. He demonstrated clearly that personal value priorities help
to explain such behavior as racism, a tendency toward war, or loving
attitudes.
Both Maslow and Rokeach, of course, belong in a psychological
framework. Similar work in sociology is in the area of sociological trait
analysis. An example of this work is the European Value System (EVS)
discussed by Tonna (1996), which takes a look at common issues in society
and tries to clarify them into critical issues and consider them as value
priorities. This creates a hierarchy that includes culture, society, and values,
a process similar to that used by Maslow and Rokeach, except that theirs
was a more human behavioral approach.
The work of Graves (1974) and Beck and Cowan (1996) in the same
period developed the concept that values underpin Worldview. However,
this work added the idea that Worldviews differ depending on the
developmental level of the person or, indeed, the level at which the society
is currently operating. They saw that a person's Worldview would change as
he or she reaches new levels of maturity. This coincides with Kohlberg and
Maslow's concept that human beings are developmental and go through
new stages as they approach personal self-actualization.
It is worth noting that for Maslow, as well as Graves, values underpin
the corporate culture and Worldview. For Graves and Maslow, personal
reality is not static, nor is society; rather, culture and people develop by
stages. So for Maslow, the values of wholeness and self-actualization that
lead to a systemic view of the world occur only with people who have gone
through prior stages of development in their own lives.

REVIEW OF THE THREE PERSPECTIVES

In reviewing the objectivist, subjectivist, and integrationist viewpoints, we

can reach several conclusions regarding values theory:
1. Values underpin human motivation and human meaning systems; they
deepen our understanding of motivation relative to organizational
psychology (Maslow, 1972).
2. Values underpin corporate and organizational culture, particularly the
Worldview that people have (Rokeach, 1979; Parsons, 1988, p. 57).
3. Values underpin personal and organizational Worldviews (Graves, 1974;
Hall, 1986; Morgan, 1986).
4. Values develop in stages throughout a person's life. Values would also
appear to develop in stages during the life of an organization (Maslow,
1970; Hall, 1976).
On this basis, the most highly developed values theory and values
measurement to date is found in the work of Hall (1986, 1995) and Tonna
(1996). In the 1970s and 1980s Hall and Tonna built on the work of
Maslow, Rokeach, and the philosophical traditions to establish an objective
set of values that could lead to instrumentation of the measurement process.
They carried out extensive research in cross-cultural settings in order to
discover how extensive a values list might be that would comprehensively
explain human behavior. Their claim is to have developed an objective set
of 125 values, which, if prioritized in different ways, can explain any kind
of human behavior. They then developed instrumentation that allowed
researchers to measure personal or corporate values based on this objective
set of values.
The 125 values were then related to stages of Worldview development.
They posited four general Worldviews with eight stages of development,
two stages for each Worldview (Hall, 1986). What makes the work of Hall
and Tonna unique is that they established an objective set of measurable
values as well as Worldviews; and the sophistication of instrumentation and
degree of validation on which their work is based. They did extensive
validity studies based on American Psychological Association (APA)
standards to come up with standardized definitions of the 125 values and in
order to develop measurement instrumentation (Hall et al., 1986). By 1986
they had developed validated computerized instrumentation in the form of
questionnaires and computerized scanning programs with which to measure
the values inherent in documents, individuals, and organizations.
STATE OF THE ART IN VALUES THEORY
There is a growing acceptance of the integrationist view of values as
state of the art, and modern organizational literature commonly holds that
values measurement is an essential part of the development of
organizational systems.
In the integrationist view, the concept of economic value has some
validity. To the integrationist, economic values as profit and success and so
on, which are such a large part of modern life are simply the placing of a
priority on two to three values that should, in terms of wholeness of life, be
put into a relationship with other values, for example, the 36 values of
Rokeach, the 50 values of Maslow, or the 125 values of Hall and Tonna.
Senge (1990), along with his colleagues Schein (1992) and Argyris
(1990), have continually affirmed that values are critical to organizational
development. Senge places high emphasis on the need to integrate the
human relations dimension of life which includes values with a systems
approach. However, Senge failed to integrate these two approaches, he
simply states their importance. So one of the critical issues relative to the
current level of development is that popular writers such as Peters and
Waterman (1982), and Deal and Kennedy (1982) continually talk about
values as a part of modern business culture and values as essential to the
successful organization. However, they are weak in showing how values
might be put into practical use.
At this point, the literature recognizes that values theory and a systems
perspective need to be integrated. However, this appears to be a challenge
for the future rather than the current state of the art. The work of Hall and
Tonna moves in this direction by relating values and Worldviews to
organizational structures and stages of leadership development. They also
add to the field by providing a validated measurement approach to values
theory so that it can be viewed with more precision within the framework of
management systems.
SUMMARY
The objectivist view of values both historically and in the modern
framework, tends to be oversimplistic; it expresses a unitary understanding
of human development that is inadequate in addressing more complex
questions. Discussion of values in this framework tends to be narrowed
down to a moralistic context that is based on a set of external norms and
which does not take human development into consideration. On the other
hand, the objectivists affirm the importance of values in all aspects of
human life.
The subjectivist view, in reaction to the objectivist, clearly enhances our
understanding of values and led to the concept that values underpin all
behaviors, in contrast with the narrow concept of virtuous behavior. The
subjectivists’ contribution has been to show how values relate to the quality
of human life and to an individual’s freedom to choose a meaningful and
significant life. They point out the relationship between values and human
motivation. The problem with the subjectivist view is that because it has no
external norm to measure against, it is difficult to hold human behavior to
any kind of standard or to explain unacceptable behaviors such as cruelty or
racism. Ultimately, this is unacceptable because it doesn’t provide basis for
the minimal control needed in any society or organization in order for it to
function effectively.
Finally, the integrationists build on both the objectivist and subjectivist
viewpoints by pointing out, first of all, that values are the basis for
understanding behavior in terms of priorities, human motivation, and
decision making; and, second, that values underpin the developmental
stages of a person's life, reflected in the way he or she views the world. A
major contribution of the integrationists was in connecting motivation and
values as norms in human behavior. They also provided a better
understanding of conflict through values, and of issues that relate to how
values are adopted (the individual versus the norms of society).
In recent years, the integrationists have also begun to see that values are
an integral part of systems development. They have also done the best job
of adding a developmental element to values theory, and of measuring
aspects of human relations.
 At this point the integrationist view can be said to have two limitations:
(1) it has not yet succeeded in integrating the values perspective with the
systems perspective, resulting in a view of human reality that is too
personal and narrow; and (2) it has not yet succeeded in explaining conflict
in a way that can lead to useful intervention.
CHAPTER 2: CRITIQUE OF VALUES
THEORY
INTRODUCTION
Most work on values theory in the last 40 years has focused on an
integrationist perspective. This modern view of values theory grew out of
organizational psychology, anthropology, sociology, and management
science. During the last 15 years, management science has begun to address
the place of values in organizations, with most of the work occurring in the
last five. It is important to evaluate the integrationist view of values
critically relative to systems and management science because while the
integrationist values theorists have come from and focused on many
disciplines, they have not given much attention to the systems science or
systems thinking areas.
This chapter will review critically the integrationist perspective of
values as described in Chapter 1, using the sociological paradigms for
organizational analysis described in Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis by Burrell and Morgan (1979), with a view
towards the context of management and systems science. There will be two
primary focuses of the critical review:
1. The weaknesses and strengths of the integrationist values perspective in
terms of the four quadrants of the Burrell and Morgan model will be
analyzed.
2. The strengths of integrationist values theory will be shown to contribute
to systems thinking and management science.
The weaknesses and strengths of values theory will be addressed
through questions related to the epistemology, ontology, and human nature
elements of values in connection with organizational analysis. Burrell and
Morgan (Figure 2-1) use a box divided into four quadrants to help frame the
various views (or paradigms) of sociological and organizational analysis.
The opposing sides of the box have opposing perspectives. The left-hand
side of the box focuses on a subjective view of reality, while the right-hand
side is an objective or external view of reality. The top of the box comes
from the sociology of radical change, while the bottom of the box
represents the perspective of the sociology of regulation.
 The quadrants are defined by the interaction between perspectives at
each corner. Its philosophical and sociological perspective defines each of
the four quadrants. For example, interaction with the subjectivist
perspective occurs in quadrants 1 and 2, and the objectivist perspective
influences quadrants 3 and 4.
Copyright © 1999-2005 Martin L.W. Hall and SysVal.Org - 15 All Rights Reserved
The Sociology of Radical Change
1 Radical Humanists Radical Structuralists3
S
UE xist e n t ialist s
B J E C2T
IHe rme n e u t ics
V P h e n o me n o lo g y E
O
Marxism B
J
Co n f lict Th e o ry E
C
4
TI
S o cial V
Syst e ms ETh e o ry
Interpretive Sociology Functionalists
The Sociology of Regulation
Figure 2-1: Modification of Burrell and Morgan's Framework for
Sociological Paradigms
analysis. analysis. Figure 5-1 shows a modified version of the Burrell and
Morgan framework for organizational The four quadrants represent major
strands in sociological-based organizational
1. Quadrant 1 (Q1): The focus is largely on the existential approach to
reality. It is generally described as radical humanism.
2. Quadrant 2 (Q2): The focus is primarily on phenomenology and
hermeneutics. This is generally called interpretive sociology.
3. Quadrant 3 (Q3): The focus is primarily on Marxism and conflict theory.
This is generally called radical structuralism.
4. Quadrant 4 (Q4): The focus is primarily on social systems theory. This is
generally
called functionalism.
Since values are at the center of social reality, any meaningful critique of
values theory must address questions about the basic assumptions of social
reality. The questions that will be asked about values theory in each of the
quadrants can be summarized as follows:
1. Assumptions about the ontological nature of our social environment.
Is reality internal or external? This has to do with whether we create our
own external reality or are defined by it.
What are our assumptions about the ontological nature of our social reality?
And how do values fit into it?
2. Assumptions about the epistemological nature of our social environment.
How do we know what we know? From this perspective, how do we know
what is true and false?
What assumptions are made about what we understand to be true and false?
How do we gain insight? And how do values fit into these assumptions?
3. Assumptions about our understanding of human nature. How does the
person respond to the environment?
How do our assumptions about human nature and values describe our
response to the environment?
COMPARATIVEANALYSIS BETWEEN VALUES
PERSPECTIVES AND SOCIAL

PARADIGMS
In this section, we will assess how values theory answers the critique
offered by each of the four perspectives, or quadrants, in the Burrell and
Morgan framework.
Radical Humanist Paradigm: Quadrant 1
Sartre (1956) and Bugental (1976) are prominent subjectivist values
theorists in this quadrant. In this perspective, human beings are born into a
set of four limited freedoms:
1. Contingency. One is born into a set of limited circumstances (the
given) such as health or status in society through ones family. This is the
given that one has to cope with, which comes with its own level of anxiety
and comfort from which one must make life-directive choices.
2. Limited choice. One is born into a set of alternatives that emerge from
ones state of contingency (as described above), which in this view forms the
basis of the imagination. (Choice or limited choice is bounded by the
alternatives that one sees are open at any given moment. It is from the
alternatives that one is able to pick and, if one so chooses, act on one of the
choices.)
3. Limited act. This is the necessity and capacity to act on one of the
choices that comes from limited choices, in order to actualize ones life. It is
what being and becoming are about. Bugental makes the point that this is
the basis of responsibility. (Life becomes a learning experience as I act and
see the positive or negative consequences, which then become data on
which I form my options for the future.)
4. Limited intimacy (or separateness). This has to do with coping with
loneliness and the anxiety of being separate from others. (One is filled with
anxiety when one experiences separateness and lack of intimacy or support
from others.) The ultimate challenge is the separateness that occurs at death.
The radical humanist perspective views reality as a valuing process
based on the radicality of human freedom, which emerges from our ability
to choose and act. Ontologically reality is formed internally from our
choices and action in the face of separateness and the anxiety of the
contingency of life itself.
 Key values theorists in this paradigm are Raths, Harmin, and Simons
(1966), who initiated the values clarification movement in education in the
1960s, which in turn filtered into the management sciences through the
human relations movement. The central idea of this movement is that
values underpin behavior. In these authors perspective, values are only
related to personal experience within the framework of the individuals own
unique environment.
This paradigm could be described as an attempt to develop sociology of
radical change from a subjectivist standpoint. It is a perspective that focuses
on transcending or removing the limitations of existing social arrangements,
and it is very critical of the status quo. It is concerned that the ideological
superstructures that dominate man will get between him and his true
consciousness (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 32), and the goal of this
paradigm is to gain a release from these constraints. Free will, individual
values clarification, and the destruction of boundaries are key ideas in this
paradigm. Existentialism is a key philosophical strain that fits squarely in
this paradigm.
Social theorists that dominate in this area are Habermas (1974),
Marcuse (1964), and Sartre (1956). Illich (1973), Castaneda (1968), and
Laing (1967) are social theorists that are influenced by this paradigm. These
thinkers seek to change the world through changing modes of cognition and
consciousness. From the existentialist point of view, the definition of reality
comes from the decisions that the individual makes. The understanding of
the meaning of being and becoming emerges from decision making.
While existentialist authors have considerably influenced the
subjectivist view of values, Raths, Harmin, and Simons (1966) are the best
example of modern values theorists in this paradigm. They focus on a
seven-step decision-making process for understanding the self and defining
external reality. They make the point that values are formed as we choose
and act through seven processes:
Choosing: 1. Freely
2. From alternatives
3. After thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative
Prizing: 4. Cherishing, being happy with the choices
5. Willing to affirm the choices publicly
Acting: 6. Doing something with the choice
7. Repeatedly, in some pattern of life (p. 30)
 In this perspective, then, values are the consequence of a sevenfold
decision-making process. For Raths, Harmin, and Simons, anything less
than the seven criteria is only a value indicator. This is radical humanism at
its extreme, since no attachment to any external values is seen as more
important than personal choices and actions.
From an ontological perspective, the radical humanists suggest that we
define our own reality through our decision-making process, and that all
reality is controlled by the action of the individual. The weakness of this
view is that it ignores the externally created structures of society over which
the individual has no control and with which he or she must interact. The
use of this paradigm without concern for external social reality creates a
valuing process that ignores the consequences of decisions.
The 1960s and 1970s was a key time for the values clarification
movement, and it is thought by some that this led to the abuse of drugs
because of the narrow focus on the individual and his or her right to choose.
Values clarification as a learning process emerged in the 1960s and 1970s
when the use of drugs was popular and traditional sexuality and sex roles
were being challenged. At first values clarification was an ideal basis for
investigating these questions. But because it was not put into an objective
framework, it turned out to be unhelpful even damaging. In the view of
some social theorists, this gave individuals the license to make poor
decisions without regard to consequence using free will without regard for
the outcome.
From the epistemological view of this paradigm, the only way we can
gather knowledge is through the questions we ask and the decisions we
make. It is the answers to these questions that help us determine what is true
or false in the world around us. Reality is defined by the answers to the
questions asked and the decisions made. Values are seen as those elements
that influence the decision-making problem. Values create an innate sense
of priorities that influence decisionmaking. From the radical humanist
perspective, these influences derive from the individual and not from
external social structures. Where the question of human nature is addressed,
values directly affect how human beings respond to their environment
through the values clarification process. The individual responds to the
environment through decisions (since values underpin these decisions). It is
the consequences of these decisions that affect the valuing process and
consequential future decisions. This follows the existential concept that the
individual makes his or her own future.
Strengths of the Values Approach in Quadrant 1
• Values are clearly related to a detailed sevenfold decision-making
paradigm. Since decision making is central to management science, an
important link with systems thinking is established.
• Values are identified as central to how we learn to live our lives
choicefully. In other words, epistemologically knowing, understanding, and
responsibility are linked.
• What is meaningful and human choice and actions are linked, giving us a
clue to the nature of human motivation.
Weaknesses of the Values Approach in Quadrant 1
• The lack of attention to any recognition of objective values and norms
in society makes the paradigm unacceptable. Personal choicefulness fails to
provide a substantial understanding of the whole range of human failures
through poor choices. At a systems level, any choice would be equal to any
other, but experience and education would make a different claim. The
paradigm is minimally helpful but too narrow.
• Equally damaging is the realization that although the connection
between values and decision making is helpful, there is a lot from a systems
perspective that is not accounted for and that this paradigm simply cannot
address, such as self-preservation as a primary motivator in human history.
• It fails to address the wider systems perspective, since it deals with the
individuals approach to the world. For this reason, this approach is unaware
of questions that deal with wider systemic reality.
• It does not deal with the issues of objective values even at a minimal level.
• Although choice, action, and intimacy are the basis for meaning in the
existential paradigm, as are their extensions in love, freedom, and creativity,
there are still unanswered questions related to the wider systems perspective
and its contribution to human oppression and development. At a very basic
level it can be argued that relationship is more basic than individual
freedom, and as such certain questions and answers must be addressed from
a systems perspective. Certainly the values clarification movement ceased
to be influential as a consequence of this weakness; and the educational
community had an intuitive sense that wider moral and ethical issues simply
could not be addressed from such a radical subjective stance.
Interpretivist Paradigm: Quadrant 2
 Heidegger (1962) and Oden (1969) are theorists that fit into this
paradigm. In this perspective, interpretative sociology tends to be anti-
institutional. Important values theorists in this quadrant are Maslow (1971)
and Rokeach (1979), who come from a subjective and human perspective
that is not so much anti-institutional as descriptive of why things are the
way they are. Their underlying assumption is that the institution is a
projection of the persons values. Even though interpretive sociologists
could be described as individually oriented their work is important because
they make use of the concept of Worldview to understand institutions. For
example, this perspective has an affinity with Checkland’s Soft System
Methodology (SSM) because of its use of Worldview.
The interpretivist paradigm is an attempt to develop sociology of
regulation from a subjectivist standpoint. It focuses on understanding the
world as it is, and sees the individual as a participant in action rather than
an observer of it. It looks at the sociology of regulation as implicit rather
than explicit (such as you might see from the functionalist paradigm). It
seeks explanation of the world through individual subjective consciousness
(Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 28). From this point of view, the social
structures we perceive are created by the individual and do not exist
externally, but are merely a network of assumptions and shared meanings.
From an ontological point of view, theorists in the interpretivist paradigm
view the world as questionable and problematic. To understand the
meanings that guide social life, they often look inward at human
consciousness and subjectivity. Key philosophical strains in this paradigm
are phenomenology and hermeneutics.
This paradigm is heavily influenced by the German idealist tradition,
with Kant (1952) as the primary influence. Other key theorists are
Heidegger (1962), Dilthey (1976), Weber (1976), Husserl (1929), and
Schutz (1967). On the values side, key authors in this quadrant are Oden
(1969) and Heidegger, and from the integrationists, Maslow (1971) and
Rokeach (1979).
Rokeach and Maslow’s version of Worldview fits into Checkland’s
perspective. They are the first values theorists to propose an objective set of
values that underpin human behavior and to attempt to explain Worldview.
Maslow defined 50 values grouped around two Worldviews. Rokeach had
36 values split between 18 means and 18 goals values. Rokeach did fairly
comprehensive studies on how perceptions of various groups in society
were underpinned by choice of values priorities. This was done to explain
different racial and political views of reality. A key concept here is that all
understanding of social reality comes from the human being.
Rokeach, as an integrationist, felt that values can be defined objectively
but the priorities in which the individual puts them are subjective.
Integrationists see organizational transformation as flowing from the
Worldview of the person. Worldview here is very narrow, implying the
perspective through ones values. The basic assumptions of Worldview as
defined by Maslow and Rokeach are integrated into the Hall-Tonna (Hall,
1995) approach. Maslow in particular looks at the issue of being from a
psychological perspective, and this relates readily to the concept of
phenomenology prevalent in this paradigm.
A weakness of integrationist theory is that it explains away conflict
without addressing it. Ontologically, these theorists are coming from inside
out (from the individual towards the institution or social framework) in
much the same way that the radical humanists do. Epistemologically, the
structure of knowing is explained and understood through the values
priorities of the subject. But in this case, there is an objective set of values
from which the individual chooses subjectively. It is these objective values
that allow a Worldview to be defined that can be understood by more than
one individual.
The idea of values priorities is very powerful. How we know, and how
we decide, flows from our values priorities. Rokeach used values in-groups
to get at group value (or norm) data. Kouzes and Posner (1990) contributed
further to the work of Rokeach, suggesting that values priorities can be used
to measure leadership style and organizational culture. From the view of
human nature, Maslow (1971) suggests that the human being is formed at
the beginning of life by choosing values priorities in response to the
demands of the environment (such as for self-preservation). Through his
theory of the hierarchy of human values, Maslow makes the claim that the
spiritually integrated person can determine his or her own life by making
values priority choices regardless of environmental imposition.
Strengths of the Values Approach from Quadrant 2
• An objective set of values underpins behavior; an individual selects
values priorities in order to make a decision. This idea is a major
contribution to decision-making theory, as well as to our understanding of
individual behavior.
• Declaring an objective set of values from which people subjectively pick
values priorities helps to make tacit knowledge explicit.
• Norm studies (such as those carried out by Rokeach) help build a
foundation for a measurement system for culture (by groups).
• Maslow’s theory of values development contributes to our
understanding of human nature (for example, his belief that environment is
more influential to individuals when they are younger).
Weaknesses of the Values Approach from Quadrant 2
• There does not seem to be a clear rationale for how the objective set of
values that Rokeach uses was arrived at. The values are not looked at from
the point of universality, and they cannot be viewed as totally objective.
• There are no definitions for the values and terms used in the norm studies,
making them weak scientifically.
• This perspective is too wary of social structures and does not take them
seriously enough.
• Maslow’s developmental approach, while helpful, is not grounded deeply
enough to be respectable. It has face validity but not real validity.
Radical Structuralist Paradigm: Quadrant 3
Critical theorists in the radical structuralist tradition are Hegel and those
that come from the Marxist tradition, such as Marx (1976) himself and
Levi-Strauss (1968). This paradigm attempts to develop sociology of
radical change from an objectivist standpoint. The frame of reference is an
understanding of the world as it is, and it sees the individual as an observer
of action rather than a participant in it (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 34).
From an ontological point of view, theorists in the radical structuralist
paradigm view the world as having radical change built into the nature and
structure of human society. Key to all the theorists in this paradigm is the
idea that society is characterized by fundamental conflicts that generate
radical change through political and economic crisis. The emancipation of
men and women comes through this conflict and change. Radical
organizational theory also fits into this paradigm, but this perspective is not
seen much in the British and American views of sociology.
The mature Marx, whose ideas developed after his political
involvement, probably influences radical structuralism most, particularly by
his interest, is Darwinian evolution and political economy. Marx (1867),
Engels (1940), Weber (1976), and Bukharin (1925) are key sociological
theorists to emerge in this paradigm. Conflict theory, which is firmly in this
paradigm, is influenced by the work of Marx and Weber. From the values
side of things, key authors that influence this perspective are Marx (again),
Argyris (1964), Beck and Cowan (1996), and Hall and Tonna (Hall, 1986).
While values theory begins to deal with conflict better from this
perspective, it is probably best suited for helping to establish parameters for
understanding ethical conflict. In a conflict situation the definitions of
ethical and moral conflict have values as central concepts.
Dialectics and Worldview
Dialectics originated with Socrates and Plato, whose arguments were
posed around concepts such as the meaning of truth or justice. Dialogues
were used to address conflict. An argument would be stated an anti-
argument would be offered, and then a conclusion reached. Hegel and Marx
both used the idea of dialectics to look at opposing forces in history, and as
a basis for creating and understanding the development of history. This
started the idea that life itself was dialectical in nature. The sciences have
been much influenced by the idea that by critically examining concepts and
counter-concepts it is possible to create something altogether new.
Influenced by Marx and Hegel, Beck and Cowan (1996) and Hall and
Tonna (Hall, 1995) use the concept of dialectics in the interpretation of
values priorities to help explain the connection of values and Worldview.
Both author teams see the values as underpinning the Worldviews of both
individuals and groups as they relate to their environments. Particularly
interesting is the work of Hall (1986), that builds on the work of
Worldviews through a complex dialectical process influenced at its roots by
Marx and Hegel (although the dialectical approach of Hall may be
unrecognizable due to Beck and Cowan’s influence from psychology). Hall
and Tonna try to strike a balance between the influence of the person and
influence of the system through cultural Worldviews.
Beck and Cowan (1996) look at values systems over an eight-stage
developmental model, where Worldview is defined as a way of coping and
dealing with conflict. The eight stages are as follows:
Stage 1 Survival Sense
Stage 2 Kin Spirit
Stage 3 Power Gods
Stage 4 Truth Force
Stage 5 Strive Drive
Stage 6 Human Bond
Stage 7 Flex Flow
Stage 8 Global View
They use this framework to manage conflict rather than avoid it. The
inherent weakness is that they talk about values systems but not values, so
that parameters for their work are hard to define objectively. But they
establish the connection of dialectics to Worldview, and show how
Worldview explains conflict at a global level and can explain culture and
organizational conflict.
Hall and Tonna approach the issue differently; they show how clusters
of different values underpin Worldviews. Hall (1986) suggests that
Worldviews are the dialectical relatives of goals and means values. Unlike
Beck and Cowan, Hall and Tonna relate Worldviews to management rather
than societal system, and there is therefore a focus on individual issues such
as leadership styles. Like Beck and Cowan, Hall and Tonna use an eight-
stage developmental model with related Worldviews.
Marx and Hegel have a developmental view of history, but Beck and
Cowan have more recently shown that culture goes through stages.
Strengths of the Values Approach from Quadrant 3
• Like Beck and Cowan, Hall and Tonna define eight developmental
stages. (Developmental refers here to the progressing and regressing
through the stages of a persons life.) Hall and Tonna, though, integrated
more than 40 theories of development into their values framework. Each
stage reflects this effort. The Hall and Tonna approach is more defensible
because of this extensive groundwork. A lack of similar groundwork
appears to be a weakness in the work of Beck and Cowan.
• As did Rokeach, Hall and Tonna did norm studies on the set of 125
objective values they defined, and they also have a clear rationale for how
they reached these values. The values, while being part of a rigorous norm
study, were also developed by looking at many previous authors.
• Hall and Tonna related their 125 values to eight stages and theories of
development. The values are split between goals and means values (similar
to Rokeach’s work). The values are also identified in terms of their
connection to associated behavior.
• Dialectics deal with cause and effect in the values interaction. The
importance of dialectical relationships is well established by Beck and
Cowan.
• Hall and Tonna establish values and dialectics as underpinning Worldview
and providing connections to management science.
• Measurement (through objective sets of values) allows one to look at
the weaknesses. You can use the measurement to see if something cannot be
measured. If it cannot then the assumptions may be wrong (either about the
assumption or the measurement tool).
Weaknesses of the Values Approach from Quadrant 3
• Although Beck and Cowan, as well as Hall and Tonna, have done
work on dialectics, the work in general is fairly new. The psychological
work on dialectics has not looked hard enough at connections between what
Marx and Hegel developed and the dialectic between behavior and
experience. The concepts of values and Worldview are not convincing in
the Beck and Cowan work except intuitively (value systems as Worldview).
Deeper anthropological analysis suggests that values are part of Worldview,
but not the whole reality.
• The 125 values set designated by Hall and Tonna makes a significant
contribution to human behavior. But the actual number could be different
work also needs to be done to determine the cultural bias of the work.
• There is a scarcity of verification of developmental theory in fields
other than that of psychology; and the work done in psychology has not
transferred readily to other social sciences such as sociology and
anthropology. Bradford (1978), through the NTL training program, has
done a fair amount to look at developmental stages ingroups. The
fragmentation of the sciences has led to limited development of this concept
in other areas.
• The work is not very systemic. The psychology model, the source for
much of this values work, stresses the individual over the system. The
system is viewed as a projection of the individual. Hall, however, indicates
that the higher stages of values development are organizmic rather than
individual in nature. Here is a propensity towards being systemic.
• Issues of conflict resolution, as delineated by Marx, are not dealt with
sufficiently.
Functionalist Paradigm: Quadrant 4
This paradigm is firmly rooted in the sociology of regulation and
approaches the world from the objectivist point of view. Functionalists have
been key participants in the order-conflict debate (Burrell and Morgan,
1979, p. 26). This perspective tries to provide rational explanations for
social affairs. It is a pragmatic, problem-oriented, social engineering
approach that strives for order, equilibrium, and stability in society. Key
authors are Parsons and Shils (1951), Spencer (1969), Durkheim (1938),
and Pareto (1919). The Marxist theorists in quadrant 3 have spent more
energy addressing issues of conflict; this speaks to the issue of maintaining
order addressed here.
Parsons (1957) is important in this quadrant, precisely because he wrote
so much about values and culture. His work had a solid influence on the
work of Tonna and consequently on the HallTonna approach. Acceptance of
Parsons work has been marred by interpretations that perceive him as
advocating the layering of society. Tonna claims that the limits of Parsons
view of a layered society are remedied when it is integrated with a
developmental perspective.
The objectivist reality of functionalism allows the development of
values measurement because of its reinforcement of societies role in values
development. Hall and Tonna extend this idea more solidly into the area of
Worldviews.
Parsons laid an important foundation in his exploration of the
relationship between values and organizational culture. In working with
others at Harvard University, he began to look at how organizations
function and concluded that the system primarily emerges from the
psychology of the persons involved, or the group. Consequently, he
proposed that organizations be underpinned by values. Values are beliefs,
hopes, and desires of individuals, and work as the regulatory system of
society. Parsons work is brought into modern management science through
the work of Argyris (1990) and Schein (1992). Argyris approaches conflict
through the idea of real and espoused values and the conflict that arises
from the discrepancies between them, but his final aim is to reduce conflict
and improve management efficiency.
In Parsons work, any organization has four components referred to as
AGIL: Adaptation, Goals (and purpose), Internal integration, and Latency
(patterns emerge). He felt that these four elements were underpinned by
values priorities that give rise to norms and climate (for example, norms
related to business policies). Critics said that, because this reinforces a
layered society, it maintains the status quo. Regardless of this charge, the
relationship to values and culture is unquestioned.
Strengths of the Values Approach from Quadrant 4
• Argyris and Schein, influenced by Parsons, realized that values underpin
culture.
• Schein, and others such as Senge (1990), established the importance of
understanding values in order to connect to a systemic vision of the
organization.
• Schein connects values to organizational culture, but does not make them
equivalent; this is confusing in some other models, such as the one
suggested by Beck and Cowan.
• Argyris clarifies the difference between real and espoused values (aspired
beliefs and concrete behavior).
• Argyris’ construct contributes greatly to resolving conflict in a concrete
manner for the management of human systems.
Weaknesses of the Values Approach from Quadrant 4
• One could argue that the discrepancy between real and espoused values
could help reinforce a layered society.
• Argyris, Schein, and Hall all have a strong subjectivist element and are not
systemically objective about reality.
• Argyris and Schein come out of a Parsonian understanding of values and
do not look at the newer developments; Rokeach (1979), however, does.
A ‘Meta’ Values Theory
Hall and Tonna looked at the landscape of values theorists and
determined that many of them were good within certain specific parameters.
They felt that a more comprehensive theory might be more universally
applicable. Hall and Tonna integrated a majority of the modern values
theorists with special attention to integrating the widest view possible of
different values perspectives. This meant that Hall and Tonna’s subsequent
work has in some way tried to address issues in each of the quadrants dealt
with in this chapter. They are two of the few theorists who deal with many
of the critical issues involved with the practical uses of values theories;
their theory results in a useful methodology. They looked critically at the
weaknesses that certain authors had and tried to find other theorists that
might address those weaknesses. They put all this into a developmental
framework that better allows for a shift between different paradigmatic
views of values.
Hall and Tonna (Hall, 1986, 1995; Tonna, 1993, 1994) have researched
and defined a set of 125 values; their work shows how eight clusters of
values relate to Worldview and are connected through 47 theories of
development. They have also done considerable work to see how values
occur in clusters that relate to human motivation and decision making in
management systems. The research has been validated using standards
approved by the American Psychological Association (APA) to be used as a
viable instrument for the measurement of values. Additionally, the
instrument was developed and used in cross-cultural environments and in
seven languages.
The foundation of the theory is based on the research of Hall and Tonna,
who ascertained in the late 1970s through a series of document studies that
there are approximately 125 values that underpin human behavior. Other
theorists such as Maslow and Rokeach had come up with other values lists
(Maslow identified 36 values; Rokeach had 50). The Hall-Tonna list of 125
was established through studies of human development literature, and later
validated through measurement instruments. The validation included
defining each of the values in the list (see appendix).
The values map illustrates that the values cluster into eight stages of
development. Hall and Tonna established the linkage to the various theories
of human development, including historical and sociological paradigms; but
the main influences come from psychological and ethical orientations.
Examples include Paige’s stages of development of knowing (1932),
Erikson’s eight stages of emotional development (1963), and Kohlberg’s six
stages of moral development (1981). Hall-Tonna’s eight stages precipitate
out into four Worldviews, each of which reinforces unique leadership and
organizational behavior through the values at that particular phase of
development.
Hall and Tonna’s approach uses values as a way of measuring and
understanding corporate culture. Other authors, such as Checkland (1981)
and Beck and Cowan (1996), have linked Worldview as a significant aspect
of culture to specific values that underpin that Worldview.
In the Hall-Tonna paradigm, each of the Worldviews is divided into two
stages, A and B. A values are personal; B values are institutional. Each of
the stages has two sets (or types) of values: goal values and means values.
Goal values, which cluster in and across the stages, are the underpinning for
the long-term goals of the systems. The means values are attached to the
goals values and contain the skills that underpin the behavior needed to
execute the skills. The authors surveyed the literature and were able to link
more than 5000 skills to the means values.
Using the APA standards, they developed three instruments: a personal
inventory, a group inventory, and a document analysis program. This work
is significant in that the research and validity has been done on the
measurement of values as a way to describe corporate culture through
Worldview in a developmental framework.
Subsequent work on organizational development (specifically
organizational transformation) has confirmed (building on Rokeach) those
values cluster underpin and reflect the decision-making process of
organizational leadership. Measurement of Worldview discrepancies in an
organization has gone a long way to enable the understanding of conflict
and how to manage it or live with it.
Hall and Tonna built their theory of values development within a
systemic, cultural context directed eventually at organizational change.
However, since they constructed their approach on the weakness of earlier
theorists, the question is whether this has been an adequate job. The
following section will address the positives and negatives of Hall and
Tonna’s work, and whether they have addressed the issues of the values
theories in each quadrant (as critiqued above).
Quadrant 1 Strengths
• Values theorists established that values are related to and derived from
human choicefulness and decision making.
Weaknesses
• The Raths, Harmin, and Simons (1966) approach failed to relate the
decision-making process to a clear ethical framework. This values
framework is too narrow to deal with the issues of values to meaning, and
values to ethics.
Hall and Tonna’s response to this:
• Values are key to decision making, but they expand the scope to a
more systemic perspective through the objective set of 125 values within a
developmental framework. Their work established a clear relationship
between values development, stages of moral development (Kohlberg,
1981), and business ethics (Stevens, 1979) A linkage is made between
various western philosophies of ethics and human development.
Quadrant 2
Strengths
 • Rokeach shows how specific values underpin priorities in human
systems of meaning and decision making. Rokeach establishes a clear link
between specific values and Worldview.
• Maslow links specific values to decision making and motivation.
Weaknesses
• Neither Maslow nor Rokeach have a solid rationale for the values sets
they have chosen. They also do not have standard definitions for their
values, making validity difficult because there is no standard against which
to measure.
Hall and Tonnas response to this:
• Hall and Tonnas early response was to see what minimal values
underpin the various theories of human development; that process elicited
the response that Maslowís and Rokeachís approaches were biased and
narrowly focused.
• Hall and Tonna developed a method for looking at values through
language based strongly on the work of Freire (1972); after a number of
iterations, they established a baseline of 90 values that eventually expanded
to the 125 values now used.
• Hall and Tonna established their values definitions in a cross-cultural
context, as well as in some Indo-European, Semitic, and Asian languages.
• The 125 values are not an absolute set, but they establish a sound
baseline for values and organizational research. The validity project (Hall et
al., 1986) established the baseline for questionnaires and various
measurement instruments. This work addresses the deficiencies in quadrant
2.
Quadrant 3
Strengths
• The dialectical and developmental work of Tonna and the relationship
of Worldview and values of Beck and Cowan firmly established the
relationship of values and Worldview in a developmental framework.
• Both theories relate personal and societal conflict to developmental
constructs.
Weaknesses
• Beck and Cowan do not firmly establish the connection between values
and Worldview.
• Explaining societal conflict through a series of developmental
discrepancies is not a sufficient argument from a Marxist perspective.
Values and Worldview do not have a broad enough systemic framework to
address this.
Hall and Tonna’s response to this:
• Hall and Tonna established a connection between values and Worldview
in a developmental framework.
• Values and Worldview are connected with other theories of development.
• But it is not the purpose or the scope of the values work to address
many wider systemic issues such as societal and organizational conflict. It
would be useful to supplement Hall and Tonna’s work with a wider
systemic approach.
Quadrant 4
Strengths
• The functionalist area establishes values as an important part of culture,
which extends to organizational culture.
Weaknesses
• The systemic views are Parsonian, and even though they are expanded
into a developmental framework, they need other systemic methodologies
in order to complement their deficiencies. Parsons can be criticized for
reinforcing a layered society, and clearly values cannot address many of the
other issues that are brought up in systems thinking.
Hall and Tonnas response to this:
• This is where they are weakest. Their systemic view comes primarily out
the work of Parsons, which is somewhat stuck in a layered view of society.
Conclusions
The Hall-Tonna Values Theory has helped organizations make paradigm
shifts from one Worldview to another, primarily by using values
measurement tools, gap analysis, and a developmental map for
understanding these shifts. Systems methodologies, on the other hand, work
well within a certain Worldview but have difficulty shifting out of their own
paradigm to a new Worldview; also, they cannot aid an organization in
shifting its own Worldview. But systems methodologies are able to help the
individual participants within the organization understand their place in the
system as a whole, which values theory has had difficulty doing.
In other words, it helps to give each of the individual participants a
systemic view of the organization. Systems methodologies are much more
effective and efficient at addressing problem-solving issues and creating
comprehensive models of the problem situation or organization.
Consequently, the research focuses on trying to integrate the positives of
systems methodologies with the positives of values theory by using the
Hall-Tonna Values Theory to create connections.
The Hall and Tonna construct adequately addresses many of the issues
raised through the values theories addressed above. However, relative to our
critique framework, the Hall-Tonna theory is strongest in quadrants 1, 2,
and 3. It is weak in connecting to quadrant 4, since Hall and Tonna are more
anchored in the individual rather than a systemic perspective. The values
perspective leans strongly on a subjective view of reality and may be
inclined to miss wider systemic issues. But it is not true that core culture
would be different than that of individuals. Work needs to be done to
address values theory in the context of wider systemic issues such as
looking at the organization and its environment as a system.
CHAPTER 3: VALUES
THEORYAPPLICATION ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter, a critique of values theory has suggested that
the Hall-Tonna Values Theory may be a good practical use of current values
thinking; it is necessary to look at the HallTonna Values Theory (HTVT) in
more depth in order to show how values might usefully be integrated with
CST and systems science in general. What follows is a description of
HTVT in terms of its usefulness in the areas of organizational development
and human relations.
The theory developed by Brian Hall and Associates is built on the
history of values development. It integrates much of the previous work on
values in order to provide an objective set of 125 values describing all
human behaviors. Hall (1995) developed the theory on the assumption that
it would be the basis for a useful methodology for organizational
intervention and change.
Copyright © 1999-2005 Martin L.W. Hall and SysVal.Org - 32 All Rights Reserved

HALL-TONNAVALUES THEORY

The rationale for choosing Hall' s theory of values is precisely because

it is built on historical frameworks, and can be considered as the next
logical step incorporating the natural historical confluence of values theory
of social theorists such as Parsons (1957), Kohlberg (1981), and Maslow
(1970, 1971). Figure 6-1 illustrates all the sources on which Hall drew for
his theoretical base.
La M
ngu
er
mf
EtAu orReTr hicth(T Cl Soligiad aloriex ar crouitio Listatts)k ats n tsive es
Th TillAri
eoichst
lo otl
gy Phe
iloof KasoArt nt
Diph
Re scTr y Aq KirCl erad ui keas ligi gasic on n itio naars mn s den WTr He Oesad
ter
n
ge deitio l nn BuSoHi M ge Saciast ar nt rtrl or x ha e
y RePh Ph l He ligiilo ilo id onso so eg &ph phEx ge
y y ist rHi Le enst viStr
or au tial
y
se ist
s
Ha (H Kl SoAn
llVaThall uc ciothrToTolueoet kh loop nnnnesryal. ol gyol a
a) m &og

y PaArrs gyon ris

Dus Re

rkHu lati Jo

hemon ne

imans s

LeStr Sc Fr vi
au he euAdse OrPsAn EriSuHoHiSc Ps
in d,ler
Hugayc aly csllivrnstie yc mnizho sts soaneyorncho antiolo n,anety e lo / nagy GrDy Jud al.of gy Gil l
lig ounang an pmi , Ch
cs
Ph Fo M Roe ysi wl asl kemics er ow acstr hy/ Ko BrCa hl adpr be fora rg d
Pi
ag
et
EdPs
ucyc Friatiho eronlo ealgis
ts

Figure 6-1: A Values Theory Map

The primary publications describing the Hall-Tonna Values Theory are
The Development of Consciousness: A Confluent Theory of Values (Hall,
1976); Developing Leadership in Stages: A Value-Based Approach to
Executive Management (Hall, 1979); The Genesis Effect: Personal and
Organizational Transformation (Hall, 1986); Leadership Through Values:
An Approach to Personal and Organizational Development (Hall and
Thompson, 1980); and Values Shift (Hall, 1995). Additional references are
Values Clarification As a Learning Process (Hall, 1973), and finally the
Manual for the Hall-Tonna Inventory of Values (Hall et al., 1986).
The HTVT objective set of 125 values was developed over a period of
ten years by a team of 15 people, who carried out an investigation into
whether or not this set of 125 values was a comprehensive description of
the values that are demonstrated by all known human behavior. They based
their work on a literature review of the work of previous values theorists, as
well as an investigation of mental health categories and review of many
other sources (Hall, 1995).
 The 125 values are, metaphorically speaking, not unlike the periodic
table of atomic elements used in chemistry that cluster to form the
molecules that make up material matter. In the same way, values cluster to
form the attitudes that underpin human behavior. Just as the chemical
elements combine to create compounds, one might identify clusters of
values from a list to help describe human behaviors. Looking at what
appeared to be a finite number of human behaviors to see if they could be
described derived the HT list of values. The HTVT incorporated earlier
values lists such as those of Maslow (1971) and Rokeach (1979), and on the
other side of the diagram under philosophy, the values, virtues, and ethical
lists from religious traditions, as well as the works of early values of Greek
philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates.
VALUE PATTERNS
The culminating research on the 125 values took place in 1979 at a
conference in Montreal. Hall (1986) notes that seven different language
groups, primarily European languages, carried this out. The 125 values
were seen to fall into patterns. The Hall-Tonna 3.0 Values Map (Figure 3-2)
illustrates the patterns. Based on material from a number of developmental
theories, the list of 125 values falls into four phases of development. Each
phase is depicted by a Worldview, and each Worldview has two stages
under it. The first stage, represented by the odd numbers, has to do with the
individual, while the second stage, the even numbers, has to do with the
institution. In the Hall-Tonna paradigm, values underlie each of these
Worldviews, forming a developmental framework of eight stages of
development.
Within each of the eight stages there are two types of values: goal
values (or end values in Parsonian terms), and means values, which relate
more closely to what Rokeach called instrumental values the practical
means by which the goals are accomplished. The means values are also
further related to a list of 6,000 skills, which are codified to each of the
values. Skills could be defined as the human behavior that reflects values.
These stages of development are based on the works of educational
psychologists such as Gilligan (1982), Fowler (1981), and others, and
particularly on the work of the psychoanalysts and group dynamicists,
ranging from Bradford (1978) to Freud (1938), Erikson (1980), Jung
(1959), Adler (1964), Sullivan (1953), and others. A developmental aspect
is also reflected through the religious traditions of the higher levels of
consciousness, particularly in the work of Underhill (1955). The
developmental aspect is also found in the philosophy of art through Clark
(1969), Mumford (1969), and Langer (1957).
Hall (1995) notes in his work that several theoretical frameworks
underpin the values and stages of development shown in the values map.
One framework is an in-depth use of values within an existential
orientation. This framework was developed at the University of Santa Clara
to train student counselors. Hall (1973) draws heavily on concepts based in
the existentialism of Heidegger, reflected through Oden (1969), Bugental
(1976), and Sartre (1953), as shown in Figure 6-1.
The second framework upon which the values map is based is a
developmental one, which has been mentioned in Chapters 1, 3, and 5. The
third framework is a systemic one and is based in the natural science of
physics and utilizes the work of Capra (1982) and the concept of values
within a systemic framework. The concept of homovalence that each of the
125 values is related to the others is a critical issue since all the values in
the set are systemically connected. Hall draws on the systemic point of view
through the work of Strauss (1968), Parsons and Shils (1951), Tonna
(1996), Durkheim (1938), Kluckhohn (1951), Marx (1976), and Hegel
(1952).
The later works of Hall (1986, 1995) and Hall and Thompson (1980)
relate Worldviews to styles of leadership and organizational management.
This is his most recent work and it relates values to systems theory and, by
his own admission, is still weak since it is less developed.
VALUES AND MEASUREMENT
The manual for the Hall-Tonna inventory cites extensive validity studies
(Hall et al., 1986), and is based on more objective research than Hall's
previous books. Once the 125 values had been established in 1979 with the
framework outlined above, computer programs were developed to measure
the values and to determine whether or not the measurement in fact gave
objective information about individuals, groups, and organizational
documents.
The instrumentation that was developed was threefold:
1. Questionnaires that elicit information about individuals.
2. Instrumentation that provides composite information about groups of
individuals in an organization. Two sets of instruments were developed: one
elicits strictly group information and the other provides a composite of the
individual information. The group information gives an overall sense of the
values operating in the group. The composite information is good for
identifying whether in terms of group dynamics the individual members
hold the values needed for team success.
3. A document analysis program that scans written documents and analyzes
the values indicated in the material, as well as the values priorities.
The normative and validity studies for this work began in the early
1980s and took approximately seven years to complete. The validity studies
are based on American Psychological Association (APA) standards for
testing, although this instrumentation is not so much a psychological
instrument as a tool for sociological surveys of data on people and
documents. Nevertheless, the standards of the APA are useful in the
development of any kind of measurement instrumentation that is
sociological or psychological.
The first part of the study involved cross-disciplinary and cross-
language groups and developed standardized definitions of the values as
they relate to the stages of development in the values map.
The validity manual gives standardized definitions, which were tested
with an international cross-disciplinary group of approximately 600 people;
they demonstrated 90 percent correlation as to whether people identify the
words with the definitions. The values were mixed by a computer and
scored confidentially by an arbitrary number of the 600 individuals. This
process was the basis for internal validity and the beginning of reliability
studies.
The definitions of the values became the basis for a questionnaire. The
original questionnaire consisted of 77 multiple-choice questions, and a later
questionnaire with 125 questions was developed, since it was felt that the
mathematical mix of values was inadequate with only 77 questions. The 77-
and 125-item questionnaires were designed to produce several outputs. For
the purpose of this dissertation the outputs that are particularly relevant are:
1. The priority values of a person, document, or group which underlie
the process of decision making. Hall, based on the work of Rokeach,
establishes, in his work Values Clarification as Learning Process (1973),
the relationship between value priorities and the consequent decision-
making style of an individual.
2. The Worldview of the individual, correlating his or her priority values
to a particular stage and phase of values development. This makes it
possible to infer the leadership, ethical, and moral developmental style of
the individual.
Validity studies took several forms at this point:
1. Extensive normative studies were performed on more than 50 groups,
many of which are recorded in the manual (Hall et al., 1986) illustrating
how the value priorities of different professions and cultures differ, and
showing how value priorities underpin decision making, professional style,
and cultural orientation.
2. The subjects were asked to fill out the Hall-Tonna questionnaire and
at the same time several other instruments such as the Meyers-Briggs
Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) to show correlation with other instrumentation. One
such instrument was compared with the Allport, Vernon, Lindsey scale of
values (Allport, 1951).
3. Reliability studies were conducted in which several hundred
individual subjects filled out the questionnaire and the results were put in a
sealed envelope. The subjects then completed the questionnaire again three,
six, and nine weeks later, and all the questionnaires were again put in sealed
envelopes. Correlation studies were then carried out that showed that the
measurement instrument had a reliability of over 90 percent in the repetition
of the results.
4. Interviews were conducted with the subjects to assess whether their
leadership behavior and moral views correlated with their scores on the
instrumentation.
PROCESSES WITH MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS
Since 1987, this instrumentation has been used, along with other
processes, to engage organizations in change management education. Early
on this was carried out with international religious organizations, but over
the last six years it has been done extensively with global, multinational
industrial organizations.
In this construct, Worldviews could be thought of as a broad description
of the way in which a person perceives and understands the world around
him or her. Within this context, there are situational metaphors, described
here as leadership styles. These leadership styles are underpinned by certain
value orientations so that the Worldview forms the big picture, and the
metaphor is its narrowest expression and with values as its mathematical
counterpart.
 Another way of looking at it is to see values as atomic particles, and the
metaphors and Worldviews as the more complex molecular structure. On
the other hand, values point to the understanding of the person, and the first
expression of this is in terms of the human emotions that lead to each
individuals internal images. Hall (1976, 1986) bases this on the work of
Langer (1957).
Basically, Hall’s value definitions represent ideals, which provide
significance to a person' s life and are expressed through his or her priorities
and reflected in internal images. Ideals in this context mean desired ends
that motivate and give significance or meaning to the individual. Value
priorities are reflected in the human being's behavior and decision-making
process. And finally, images precede the value; images are internal to the
person, acted out as values, and expressed externally as Worldviews.
Within psychology and group dynamics (in the past), there has been a
strong developmental strain. Development gained significant impetus from
the psychoanalytical movement; initially with Freud, but later with Adler
(1964) and Jung (1959). Further research in this area came into the modern
environment through the work of Kohlberg (moral development and
educational psychology, 1981), Erikson (stages of adult development,
1980), Fowler (stages of faith, or belief development, 1981). In parallel,
through the same period of time, there were developmental and educational
theorists like Piaget (1932). Finally, significant work through the National
Educational Association in the USA linked development and group
dynamics to systems and organizational development. This led to the work
of people like Maslow, Rokeach, Hall, Graves, and Beck and Cowan.
Modern values theory, on the other hand, has an element of
developmental psychology in it (Maslow, Rokeach, Graves). In fact it is the
work of Graves (1974) and Beck and Cowan (1996) that has developed the
idea of Worldviews into a developmental framework. Therefore, without
the work on values it would be difficult for human relations and systems
thinking to move the work to a level of development needed to deal with
the developmental aspects and problems of organizations where human
relations is still not quite strong enough to move the Worldview into the
future.
The future area in the HTVT contains the paradigm shift, or out-of-the-
box perspective methodologies. These are the methodologies that are more
suited to shifting even when the Worldview of the organization is shifting.
These methodologies can be used to create a paradigm shift and to support
the values that are consistent with the new paradigm in order to move an
organization or individual to a new point. Values theory facilitates this
paradigm shift by helping to define the values needed for the new paradigm
(or Worldview) and suggesting the skills and behaviors needed to support
these values. So again, the developmental view of the organization is the
connection between human relations (values element) and systemic views.
Since these systemic methodologies are useful and flexible, adding this
human relations aspect should make these methodologies much more
effective and useful in the future. These methodologies specifically deal
with human organizational problems. Creating a manner for them to
strengthen this while maintaining their existing strengths should create
more effective methodologies.
CONCLUSIONS
If we simply look at values theory by itself, we see that it comes from
an individualistic context, even when it is viewed in terms of an
organization. The organization is simply reflecting the values of the
individuals involved, and the values element cannot exist without those
individuals existing within the organization. If there were a radical change
of personnel, for example, there would be a radical shift in individual and
therefore organizational values. What is needed to effectively apply values
theory is the ability, at appropriate times, to access systems concepts and
methodologies that will help move the people, and consequently the
organizations, in directions that are appropriate to the goals and objectives
that the organization has set for itself.
The Hall-Tonna Values Theory (and other values theories in general)
brings to the systems perspective three main contributions: development,
previously unavailable measurement of human decision making, and a
better way to connect the human element to the organization. Measurement
of values allows a previously unavailable element of decision making to be
brought into the problem-solving equation. It also makes it easier to
generalize human decision making through the organization by creating a
method for more objective conversations.
Development adds a dimension of time to systems perspectives. Most
modern organizational theory accepts the notion that humans and
organizations are travelling up and down and along a continuum. Systems
methodologies take snapshots in time. Using a developmental view of the
organization, one can get an understanding of whether the organization is
moving up, down, or standing still, and what management style is
operating. Finally, it better connects the human element of the individual
and the management by making the decision-making style better
understood. These are the elements that show the way to extending the
work that has already been done in adding the human relations element to
system methodologies.
REFERENCES
Allport. G. W. (1951). Towards a General Theory of Action, Part 4, Harper
Torchbooks, New York.
Aquinas, T. (1952). The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vols. 1
and 2, Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, New
York.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley,
New York. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses:
Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Aristotle. (1952). The Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, The Works of Aristotle,
Volume II, Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia Britannica,
New York.
Beck, D. E., and Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values,
Leadership, and Change Exploring the New Science of Memetics,
Blackwell, Cambridge.
Binswanger, L. (1967). Being in the World, from Selected Papers of Ludwig
Binswanger, trans. J. Needleman, Harper Torchbooks, New York.
Bugental, J. (1976). The Search for Existential Identity, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco. Bukharin, N. (1925). Historical Materialism: A System of
Sociology, Russell and Russell (1965), New York.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The Systems Approach, 2nd ed., Dell, New
York.
Clark, K. (1969). Civilization, Harper and Row, New York.
Colins, C. J., and Chippendale, P. J. (1991). New Wisdom: The Nature of
Social Reality, Acorn Publications, Sunnybank Hills, Australia.
Colins, C. J., and Chippendale, P. J. (1995). New Wisdom II: Values-Based
Development, Acorn Publications, Brisbane.
Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of
Visionary Companies, HarperCollins, New York.
Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical Sociology, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San
Diego. Copeland, I., Keller, T., and Murrih, J. (1994). Economic
Evaluation: Measuring and Managing the Values of Companies, (2nd ed.),
John Wiley and Sons, New York
Covey, S. R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, Simon
and Schuster, New York.
Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) (1994) Handbook of Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Qualitative Research. Sage
Copyright © 1999-2005 Martin L.W. Hall and SysVal.Org - 41 All Rights Reserved
Descartes, R. (1952). The Geometry of Rene Descartes, D. E. Smith, trans.,
Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, New York.
Deutsch, K. W. (1963). Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Dilthey, W. (1976). Selected Writings, H. P. Rickman, ed., Cambridge
University Press, London. Durkheim, E. (1938). Rules of Sociological
Method, Free Press, New York.
Ellis, R. K., and Hall, M.L.W. (1994). Systems and values: A practical
approach to organizational intervention. New Systems Thinking and Action
for a New Century, Proceedings of the ISSS, Pacific Grove, CA.
Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature, C. Dutt (trans. and ed.),
International Publishers, New York.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society, W. W. Norton, New
York.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the Life Cycle, W.W. Norton, New York.
Espejo, R. (1989). A cybernetic method to study organizations, in
Espejo, R., and Harnden, R. J. (eds.), The Viable System Model:
Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beers VSM, 361ñ382, Wiley,
Chichester.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of Faith, Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Herder and Herder, New
York.
Freud, S. (1938). The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, A. A. Brill (trans.),
Modern Library, New York
Frondizi, R. (1971). What Is Value, Open Court Publishing, LaSalle, IL.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA. Graves, C. W. (1974). Human Nature Prepares for a
Momentous Leap. The Futurist 8, 72-87. Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and
Practice, Heinemann, London.
Hall, A. D. (1962). A Methodology for Systems Engineering, D. Van
Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Hall, B. P. (1973). Values Clarification as a Learning Process: A guidebook
of Learning Strategies, Paulist Press, New York.
Hall, B. P. (1976). The Development of Consciousness: A Confluent Theory
of Values, Paulist Press, New York.
Hall, B. P. (1979). Developing Leadership in Stages: A Value-Based
Approach to Executive Management, Manohar Publications, London.
Hall, B. P. (1986). The Genesis Effect: Personal and Organizational
Transformation, Paulist Press, New York.
Hall, B. P. (1995). Values Shift: A Guide to Personal and Organizational
Transformation, Twin Lights, Rockport, MA.
Hall, B. P., and Thompson, H. (1980). Leadership Through Values: An
Approach to Personal and Organizational Development, Paulist Press, New
York.
Hall, B. P., Harari, O., Ledig, B., and Tondow, M. (1986). Manual for the
Hall-Tonna Inventory of Values, Paulist Press, New York.
Hall, M.L.W. (1994). Discerning Chaos in Organizations:
Understanding Chaos and Complexity in Organizations Using Human
Values. 1994 Chaos Network Conference, People Technologies, Denver,
CO.
Hall, M.L.W. and Wilby, J. (1995a), Reducing complexity: A Model for
Practical Organizational Intervention Incorporating Hierarchy Theory and
Human Values. In Bervall-Kareborn, B. (ed), Proceedings of the 39th
Annual Meeting of the International Society of the System Sciences,
Louisville, Kentucky.
Hall, M.L.W., and Wilby, J. (1995b). Reducing Complexity: Laying the
Groundwork for a New Methodology Based on Hierarchy Theory and
Human Values Theory. In Bergvall-Kareborn, B. (ed), Proceedings of the
39th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems sciences,
Louisville, Kentucky.
Hall, M.L.W., and Wilby, J. (1996). Value Systems: A Way to Greater
Understanding. In Hall, M.L.W. (ed.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual
Meeting of the International Society for the Systems sciences, Louisville,
Kentucky.
Hammond, D. (1995). History of the ISSS: Workshop Presentation at
39th Annual Meeting of the ISS, Amsterdam, Netherlands. International
Society for the Systems Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky.
Hartman, R. S. (1967). The Structure of Values: Foundation of Scientific
Axiology, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1952). A History of Western Philosophy, W.T. Jones, ed.,
Harcourt, Brace, & Company.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (Sein Undzeit ), J. Macquarre and E.
Robinson, trans., Harper and Row, New York.
Hobbes, T. (1952). In A History of Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones.
Harcourt, Brace, New York.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill International,
London.
Hoos, I. (1972). Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique, University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Husserl, E. (1929). Phenomenology, In Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th
ed.
Illich, I. 1973. Tools for Conviviality, Harper Colophon Books, New York.
Jackson, M. C. (1991). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences,
Plenum Press, New York.
Jackson, M. C., and Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems
methodologies, Journal of Operational Research, 35:473.
Jackson, M. C., and Keys, P., Eds (1987). New Directions in Management
Science, Gower, Aldershot.
Jung, C. G. (1959). Basic Writings of C. G. Jung, Modern Library, New
York. Kant, I. (1952). Critique of pure reason, pp. 838-840. In A History of
Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones. Harcourt, Brace, New York.
Kast, F. E., and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1981). Organization and Management:
A System and Contingency Approach, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kay, R., Halpin, D., and Packham, R. (1996). The Unsustainability of
Critical Systems Methodologies. Sustainable Peace in the World System,
and Next Evolution of Human Consciousness, ISSS, Louisville Kentucky
Kelly, K. (1994). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social
Systems, and the Economic World, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Keys, P. (1991). Operations Research and Systems, Plenum Press, New
York.
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple
Psychologically Orientating Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of
Heriditary Sin, R. Thomte and A. B. Anderson, ed. and trans., Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Klir, G. (1969). An Approach to General Systems Theory, Van Nostrand-
Reinhold, Princeton, NJ.
Kluckholm, C. (1951). Values and values orientation in the theory of
action, pp. 383ñ433 in Toward a General Theory of Action by T. Parsons
and E. A. Shils, Harper Torchbooks, Boston.
Knight, F. (1994). Economics and human action, Chapter 4 in Philosophy of
Economics: An Anthology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Harper
Torchbooks, New York. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral
Development, Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (1990). Leadership Challenge: How to Get
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kuhn, T. (1972). The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University
Press, Chicago. Laing, R. D. (1967). The Politics of Experience, Ballantine
Books, New York. Langer, S. K. (1957). Philosophy in a New Key, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA. Levi-Strauss, C. (1968). Structural
Anthropology, Penguin, Hammondsworth.
Locke, J. (1952). In A History of Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones,
Harcourt, Brace, New York.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New
York. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed.,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
March, J. G. (1965). Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally,
Chicago.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man, Harper and Row, New York.
Marx, K. (1867ñ1883). Capital, Penguin Books (1976), Harmondsworth.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New
York. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature,
Viking Press, New York.
Mason, R. O., and Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning
Assumptions, Wiley, New York.
May, R. (1977. The Meaning of Anxiety, Pocket Books, New York.
Mead, Margaret. (1949). Male and Female: A Study or the sexes in a
Changing World, Dell Publishing, New York.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, San Francisco, CA.
Mitroff, I. and Kilmann, R.H. (1978). Methodological Approaches to Social
Science, JosseyBass, San Francisco, CA.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Motloch, J. L., and Woodfin, T. (1993). General systems theory, cultural
change, and a human science foundation for planning and design, Systems
Research, 10(2), 1ñ13. Mumford, L. (1969). The City in History, Harcourt,
Brace and World, New York. Nietzsche, F. (1877). Geneology of Morals
and Ecce Home (1967), W. Kaufmann (ed.), Random House, New York.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
the Japanese Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Oden, T. C. (1969). The Structures of Awareness, Abingdon Press,
Nashville, TN. Pareto, V. (1919). Traite de Sociology General, Vol. 2,
Librarie Paiyot, Lausanne.
Parke, R. E., and Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the Science of
Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Parsons, T. (1957). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of
organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:225.
Parsons, T. (1988). In Theoretical Sociology by R. Collins, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, San Diego.
Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F., (1955). Family, Socialization, and Interaction
Process, Collier Macmillan Canada, Toronto.
Parsons, T., and Shils, E. A., eds (1951). Toward a General Theory of
Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences, Harper
Torchbooks, New York.
Pasmore, W., Francis, C., Haldenan, J., and Shani, A. (1982).
Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection on empiracal studies
of the 70ís. Human Relations, 35: 1179-1204. Perls, F. Hefferline, R.F. and
Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the
Human Personality, Dell Publishing, New York.
Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence,
Harper and Row, New York.
Piaget, J. (1932). Moral Judgement of the Child, Harcourt, Brace, New
York.
Plato (1952). In A History of Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones. Harcourt
Brace, New York.
Rappaport, A. (1984). General Systems Theory: Essential Concepts and
Applications, Abacus Press, Cambridge.
Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., and Simons, S. B. (1966). Values and Teaching:
Working with Values in the Classroom, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, OH.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass. Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure,
Design, and Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Robertshaw, J. E., Mecca, S. J., and Rerick, M. N. (1978). Problem Solving:
A Systems Approach, Petrocelli Books, New York.
Rogers, C. (1970). On Becoming a Person, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal, New York, Free Press.
Sartre, J.-P. (1953). Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological
Ontology. Washington Square Press, New York.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco. Schutz, W. C. (1967). Joy: Expanding Human
Awareness, Grove Press, New York. Selznick, P., (1948). Foundations of
the Theory of Organizations, Heinemann, London.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York.
Senge, P. M. (1995). The Fifth Discipline: A Field Handbook,
Doubleday, New York. Spencer, H. (1969). Principles of Sociology, ed. by
S. Andreski, Macmillan, London.
Spinoza, B. (1952). In A History of Western Philosophy by W. T. Jones.
Harcourt, Brace, New York.
Stevens, E. (1979). Business Ethics. Paulist Press, New York.
Strauss, L. (1968). Structural Anthropology, Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry: A
Systematic Presentation of the Later thinking of one of the Great Teachers
in Modern Psychiatry, W. W. Norton, New York.
Tillich, P. (1964). The Courage to Be, Yale Paperbound, New Haven, CT.
Tonna, B. (1993). Sign Sense: Report on the Signs of the Times 1993, Media
Centre Publications, Malta.
Tonna, B. (1994). Sign Sense: Report on the Signs of the Times 1994, Media
Centre Publications, Malta.
Tonna, B. (1996). Sign Sense: Report on the Signs of the Times 1996, Media
Centre Publications, Malta.
Trist, E. L., et al. (1963). Organizational Choice, Tavistock, London.
Vickers, G. (1965). The Art of Judgement, Capman and Hall, London.
Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making,
University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy, Basic Books, New York.
Appendices