Values: General And Stable Guides For Decision Making

Values are generally defined as abstract, desirable goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992) and as socially shared standards that influence norms, institutions, and collective behavior (Durkheim, 1893; Parsons, 1951). They influence attitudes, behaviors, and decision-making processes by providing a sense of what is important. Values can have a normative and prescriptive role, but are distinguished from norms (which dictate behavior in specific situations) and from attitudes (which are evaluative responses to particular objects or issues). How do values influence decision making behaviour?

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Key Characteristics of Values

1. Abstract and General: Unlike specific preferences, values are broad principles that apply across different situations (Rokeach, 1973). For example, the value of “justice” can influence decisions in the workplace, legal system, and personal relationships.
2. Hierarchically Organized: Individuals prioritize values differently, creating a value system that influences decision-making. For instance, a person who prioritizes “achievement” over “benevolence” may choose a high-paying job over a socially impactful but lower-paying one.
3. Culturally and Socially Shaped: While values have a personal component, they are also influenced by cultural, societal, and institutional factors (Hofstede, 2001). For example, collectivist cultures may prioritize “family loyalty” over “individual success,” whereas individualistic cultures may value personal achievement more highly.
4. Dynamic and Contextual: Values tend to be stable over time but can shift due to life experiences, social changes, or crises (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). A person who once valued “career success” above all may shift towards “family orientation” after becoming a parent. Values change due to social change, economic conditions, or political movements (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). For example, the increasing emphasis on “environmental sustainability” in contemporary societies reflects changing social priorities.
5. Emotionally Charged: Values are not just cognitive constructs; they evoke emotions and are tied to personal and social identity (Schwartz et al., 2012). For example, individuals who strongly value “environmental sustainability” may experience frustration or anger when witnessing ecological destruction.
6. Collective and Shared: Unlike psychological values, which emphasize individual belief systems, sociological values are shared by members of a society or social group, providing cohesion and social order (Parsons, 1951). For example, “equality” is a fundamental value in democratic societies, influencing laws and policies.
7. Institutionally Embedded: Values are maintained and transmitted through social institutions such as family, education, religion, and media (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). For example, schools teach values like “discipline” and “meritocracy,” reinforcing broader societal expectations.
8. Normative and Prescriptive: Values function as a moral compass, prescribing what behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable within a society (Weber, 1905). For instance, “honesty” is valued in many cultures, leading to legal and social norms against fraud.
9. Conflictual and Contested: Different groups within a society may hold conflicting values, leading to social tensions and political struggles (Marx, 1867). For example, debates over “individual freedom” versus “collective responsibility” shape policies on healthcare, taxation, and public welfare.

Mechanisms Linking Values to Decision-Making

Individual Decision-Making:

1. Cognitive Filtering: Values shape how individuals perceive and interpret information. For example, someone who values “security” may assess risks more cautiously than someone who prioritizes “adventure.”
2. Emotional Regulation: Values generate emotional responses that guide decisions. For instance, a person valuing “compassion” may feel guilt or empathy when making choices affecting others’ well-being.
3. Goal Prioritization: Values determine which goals are pursued and how trade-offs are managed. A person who values “achievement” over “work-life balance” may consistently choose overtime work over leisure.
4. Moral and Ethical Judgment: Values influence ethical reasoning. Individuals with strong “fairness” values may be more inclined to reject ethically dubious business practices.
5. Identity Consistency: People strive to align decisions with their self-concept and core values, ensuring psychological coherence.

Group Decision-Making:

1. Social Norm Reinforcement: Groups collectively shape decisions by reinforcing shared values. A company with an “innovation” value may prioritize risk-taking and creative solutions.
2. Value-Driven Conflict and Resolution: Differing values among members can create conflict, which is resolved through negotiation or alignment with organizational culture.
3. Consensus and Decision Framing: Groups tend to frame decisions in ways that align with dominant values. A sustainability-focused team may assess project feasibility with environmental impact as a core criterion.
4. Leadership Influence: Leaders instill organizational values, guiding team decisions. A leader emphasizing “customer-centricity” may drive decisions that prioritize user experience.
5. Collective Identity and Cohesion: Shared values create a sense of unity and purpose, fostering commitment to group decisions.

Role of Values in Decision-Making

Values shape individual and organizational decision-making by determining what is considered legitimate, desirable, and ethical. They influence:

• Risk Perception and Tolerance: Individuals and organizations assess risk differently based on their core values. For example, a company that prioritizes “stability” may avoid high-risk investments, whereas a firm that values “innovation” may embrace uncertainty and disruptive change. At an individual level, a person who values “security” is likely to make conservative financial decisions, while someone valuing “adventure” may take more risks in career or personal investments.
• Preference for Short-Term vs. Long-Term Goals: Values influence whether individuals and organizations prioritize immediate gains or long-term benefits. A company valuing “profitability” may focus on quarterly earnings, while one that emphasizes “sustainability” may invest in green technology with a long-term horizon. Similarly, individuals valuing “self-improvement” may delay gratification for future growth, whereas those emphasizing “pleasure” may prefer immediate rewards.
• Moral and Ethical Considerations in Decisions: Ethical decision-making is deeply rooted in values. A person valuing “integrity” may refuse to engage in dishonest practices, even if it leads to financial loss. In organizations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives often reflect ethical values such as “fairness” and “compassion,” influencing decisions related to labor practices, environmental impact, and community engagement.
• Alignment Between Personal and Organizational Priorities: When employees’ personal values align with organizational values, they are more engaged and committed. For example, an employee valuing “autonomy” will thrive in a workplace that emphasizes “self-direction” but may feel constrained in a highly hierarchical environment. Misalignment, on the other hand, can lead to dissatisfaction, reduced productivity, and higher turnover.

References

• Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage.
• Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359-393.
• Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19-51.
• Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meissner.
• Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Routledge.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
• Schwartz, S. H., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688.
• Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.