Bend, flex or break the rules but never violate the values.
—King County Library System, 1997
Values are like fingerprints. Nobody’s are the same, but you leave ’em all over everything you do.
—Elvis Presley
Values are deeply held beliefs that determine what is “good, right, and normal” and what is “bad, wrong, and abnormal” among members of a cultural group. Values, then, prescribe which ways of acting and being are perceived by a cultural group as better than others. Because of this and because values vary widely among cultural groups, they may—and often do—cause cross-cultural misunderstandings and conflict.
Values clashes occur frequently when people from different cultures interact. Even more important, differing cultural values exist not only country to country but also within corporations, organizations, universities, towns, ethnic groups, neighborhoods, and so on. In other words, we live with values differences every day and may be unaware when a misunderstanding or problem we encounter is based on such fundamental differences.
Consequently, most educators, trainers, and facilitators who explore intercultural and cross-cultural issues incorporate values into their planning. In designing our own academic classes and corporate workshops over the past three decades, we have often created our own values activities or modified those of others to shape an experience that fits a particular audience. In adapting or creating values activities, we have relied on the work of several well-known approaches to values. Well take a brief look at these next because they form the framework on which ours and others’ values activities are based.
The Terminal and Instrumental Approach. The terminal/instrumental values distinction was originally identified by Milton Rokeach. A terminal value is simply a goal. An instrumental value is the behavior used to achieve the goal. It is quite possible to share terminal values but exhibit different behaviors and equally possible to have different terminal values but exhibit the same behaviors.
For example, two people can share a terminal value of close family ties. One achieves this goal behaviorally by sharing a house with four generations of family; the other, by communicating with members of the family regularly, even though they are spread all over the world. The reverse is also true. Two people can share instrumental values (and behaviors); for example, they may both work very hard to earn as much money as possible. Their terminal values, however, may be quite different. For one individual, the goal is the security of having money in the bank and a college fund for the children; for the other the goal is to travel and experience as much of the world as possible.
So what’s the point? The point is, of course, that we cannot observe people’s terminal values or goals; we can only see their behavior (reflecting their instrumental values).
If I assume that because someone behaves differently from me that he or she has different goals and values, I could be wrong. If I assume that because that person behaves similarly we share the same goals and values, I could also be wrong. This is a critical distinction in developing cultural competency.
If my assumptions that others are “like me” or “not like me” are based on what I see, I may be led down the road to misperception, misunderstanding, negative judgment, and conflict. The only way I can know what goal-driven (terminal) values other people hold is to ask them, listen to them, observe them, and generate multiple interpretations for their behavior; in other words, get to know them.
Values Dimensions. A second primary framework regarding values that underlies our thinking when we adapt or create values activities is what is known as values dimensions, such as those identified by Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck, Geert Hofstede, and Fons Trompenaars, among others. These dimensions describe two opposite poles (e.g., individualism/collectivism, as mentioned in the example above) with an invisible line between them that represents the range of real-life value orientations for the same dimension. The task/relationship dimension is especially important for professionals and businesspeople working across cultures or, for that matter, instructors with task- and relationship-oriented students in the same class. The task-oriented students will prioritize an assigned paper over the needs of friends or family (or so the theory goes). The relationship-oriented student will consider picking up her cousin from the airport as more important than completing the assigned paper on time. The paper will, of course, be finished and submitted, though a bit late, after the cousin has been settled in. Or a task-oriented professional or businessperson might want to jump right into a job, identifying specific tasks, deadlines, and responsibilities, while a relationship-oriented person might first want to get to know the other participants on their team and have some “social” conversation before jumping into the job. Just how strongly each of them feels about this dimension determines their relative location along the continuum. Orientations toward task/relationship, hierarchy/equality, indirect/direct communication, and others can be plotted along the values dimensions continua as appropriate.
We have used many values continua in our discussions and activities with the idea that participants benefit from identifying where their own value orientation lies on any given continuum, then identifying where someone else might be on that same continuum, and finally identifying how to improve effectiveness across the difference. In other words, how might people modify their behavior temporarily to interact more effectively with each other?
The goals (terminal values) for both the student and the team members are, of course, to get the paper written and the job completed. Their behavioral approaches (reflecting instrumental values), however, are different. You can easily see how different instrumental values can lead to misperceptions and/or conflict, even when the end goal is the same. The task-oriented instructor, for instance, is likely to see the relationship-oriented student as lazy or unmotivated or even lacking respect for authority. The task-oriented team member often views the other team members as not serious, as wasting time, and as unfocused. Meanwhile, the relationship-oriented student and team member are likely to see the task-oriented people as cold, unfriendly, too serious, or rigid. But if both individuals understand that they are located at opposite ends of this particular continuum, it is much more likely that each can adapt his or her behavior to be more effective and reduce the potential for conflict.
Although values activities appear scattered throughout numerous publications, are presented in workshops by their creators, and are tucked into packets for training sessions, we know of no available collection of values activities. Trainers, instructors, workshop leaders are often hard-pressed to locate a values activity that fits their objectives. We have pulled together this collection of 52 activities to make all of our lives easier, thus encouraging increased values exploration in all venues. We have collected and adapted existing values activities from many sources and have contributed a large number of our own to the book. No matter what your situation is, we hope you will find exercises here that will fit your objectives.
As intercultural trainers and educators, we have used each of these activities in corporate or diversity training within workplace environments, in the United States as well as abroad. We have also used them in college, high school, and middle school classrooms. Given the diverse make up of high school and college classrooms, values activities can help students—and instructors—understand each other better and learn to negotiate values-based differences in a constructive manner. Because these activities are designed for adult learners, however, you may need to adapt them for high school and middle school students.
If you are an instructor of intermediate or advanced students for whom English is a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL), you may also find numerous activities in this manual that will help your students explore values-based issues and understand each other better both inside and outside their classrooms. You will also want to allow more time than allotted for each activity. Military personnel, missionaries, students preparing to study abroad, and members of organizations and groups of all kinds will benefit from understanding their own values and those of others with whom they will interact.
In short, anyone who is interested in becoming more effective with others will find much of value in these pages.
You will find not only a wide variety of activities on values exploration, but also two mechanisms (see “How to Use This Manual” below) for helping you choose the right activity for your situation. Each activity includes all that you need in order to conduct it:
1. Time Required to complete the activity, broken down according to each segment of the activity
2. Objectives for the activities presented in an easy-to-read list
3. Materials required for facilitating the activity
4. Process (clear, numbered instructions for leading the activity)
5. Debriefing Questions that will make this most-important aspect of any values activity easy for you (Note: We have purposely written these questions to be quite general because we have found that asking a few germane questions generates rich discussion and meaningful learning.)
6. Debriefing Conclusions, those basic truths we hope will be identified by the participants during the activity and the debriefing (If they do not identify all of the conclusions reached during the debriefing, you may add to our list to summarize points that may have been overlooked.)
In a few activities we have provided what we label “Additional Processes,” “Optional Processes,” “Optional Debriefing questions,” and so on. These are offered as alternative suggestions depending on time allotment or needs of the participants. Notes made in italics are “behind-the-scenes” comments for you, not for the participants.
You will also find in Appendix F detailed information about choosing appropriate activities for your participants based on comfort level. The Resource Bibliography rounds out the manual with readings on the intercultural theory that underlies values work and additional training materials that include but are not limited to values exploration.
Choosing the right activities for your particular situation from a book of 52 of them can be a time-consuming task, time that many of you would far rather spend preparing an activity than searching for one. We have supplied a chart called “General Classification of Activities”; if you study this chart rather than flipping through the exercises, you may save time and avoid choosing an inappropriate activity for your group.
General Classification of Activities. This chart (pages viii and ix) categorizes all 52 activities by context, time required, risk level, and purpose.
Context: The activities fall into three categories: general, work, and adaptable. General activities can be used to explore values in any setting. Work-oriented activities are to be used in any context where people are working together. Adaptable activities are designed for work-related groups but can quite easily be adapted for a general audience.
Time: Listings are in total minutes required to complete the activity, including the debriefing. We don’t recommend that you try to skimp on the time allotments, especially debriefing, which is the most essential and valuable aspect of an activity.
Risk Level: It is difficult to gauge the level of risk involved in an activity because what is of medium risk for one person may be quite threatening to another. Risk level is broken down in this manual as follows: low, low-medium, medium, medium-high, and high.
There are three participant characteristics that help determine risk level: developmental stage or intellectual ability, emotional comfort level, and perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure. Low-risk activities are most appropriate for participants who are in early stages of intercultural understanding and for inexperienced trainers. For a discussion of this subject, see Appendix F, “Choosing Appropriate Activities for Participants’ Developmental Stages.”
Purpose: This category refers to the type of values being explored. Personal (P) activities allow participants to increase self-awareness by exploring their own cultural values. Team (T) activities are particularly useful for exploring values that have an impact on team interactions and effectiveness. Organizational (0) activities take a broader view of an organization’s implicit and explicit cultural values. Multinational (M) activities are those we have found useful with groups that include participants from a diverse range of national backgrounds, and domestic diversity (D) activities we use primarily with diverse groups within the United States.
In addition to probing specifically about values, the debriefing questions at the end of most activities are designed with David Kolb’s four learning styles in mind (see page xvi). Thus, you will find a question at the end of each activity that asks about feelings, thoughts, observations, actions, and application as well as about values.
You are welcome to add more debriefing questions if you like, but we caution less-experienced trainers against using too many questions during the debriefing. Asking a few germane questions is more likely to generate rich discussion and more meaningful learning. Additionally, we caution inexperienced trainers to provide sufficient time for debriefing because, as mentioned earlier, this is where much of the learning takes place.
David A. Kolb’s (1985) approach to learning styles served as a framework and guide for our development of these activities. Kolb discusses four types of learning preferences: (a) concrete experience, (b) reflective observation, (c) abstract conceptualization, and (d) active experimentation. We have attempted to include as many types of learning preferences in each activity and its debriefing as fit the activity conceptually. Following is a brief description and example of each type of learning preference.
Concrete Experience requires learning by relating to other people and identifying feelings. Small-group discussions regarding personal experiences and feelings about an issue make use of this preference.
Reflective Observation requires people to observe what goes on around them, think about what they have seen, and explore their observations from a range of perspectives. Even though this preference is the most difficult to address in training because of the length of time it can take, it can be included through a journal-writing activity or by the debriefing questions asked.
Abstract Conceptualization involves systematic planning, logical analysis, and intellectual understanding of a situation or theory. This is addressed through lectures or problem-solving activities such as case studies.
Active Experimentation is the “doing” preference and includes completing self-assessment instruments and participating in simulations and role plays, among other activities. Participants often remember active experimentation as the most enjoyable part of a class or workshop. Because people learn differently, however, “doing” cannot be the entire focus of the training. It is also important for you to know that these activities can be high risk and may not be appropriate based on your participants’ comfort with risk, and your own level of experience.
While many will ask, or demand, that your training design be primarily experiential—a trend in both corporate and educational settings today in the United States—we caution you to balance all four styles. Too much “doing” can result in little or no understanding of the underlying reason that a behavior or action may or may not be effective cross-culturally; too much thinking can result in participants being bored or not learning how to apply the information.