Do we agree on these?

Greetings All! As I share “Giving Voice To Values” (GVV) around the world, I continue to be asked questions about how we all can respond to the current challenges facing our respective nations and our world. In the US where I reside, the particular questions revolve around the threat of authoritarianism and the deconstruction of legal, governance, scientific, environmental, medical, intellectual and social norms or commitments. And I continue to wrestle with these questions for myself on a daily basis.

So I have put together a two part reflection. Part One is my attempt to find a short list of hopefully shared values that I can appeal to when trying to connect with others across political and ideological differences. I write this as an invitation, asking “can we agree on these?” If so, can we then find a way to discuss our differences? And if we can’t agree on this short list of values, where do we differ and where can we still find common ground? I invite you to consider these questions.

In Part Two I share some thoughts on potential strategies for communication across differences (informed by the GVV approach to values-driven leadership development).

I hope that some of these thoughts may prove useful to some of you…and if not, I hope that they might trigger better, more useful thoughts from you. We’re all in this world together. Thanks for your time.

PART ONE

Recently I read an essay by Sarah Sophie Flicker in The Nation, titled “The Danes Resisted Fascism, and So Can We” (August 5, 2025). The piece describes the civilian resistance by the Danish people in the ‘40s that eventually turned back Nazi rule and, in some astonishing circumstances, actually moved some of the occupiers to change their stance. This resistance by individuals took many forms, depending on the roles, capacities, and leverage of different actors. The important thing was that they acted in any way they could and that they did so in sufficient numbers and in sufficiently visible ways, such that the occupiers were revealed to be impotent when it came to influencing and changing minds and hearts.

This, of course, brought me back to my own continual self-inquiry concerning the question: “But what can I do about the challenges facing my own country?” I hear this same question frequently from friends and colleagues who share my horror at the systematic and shockingly rapid deconstruction of long-standing legal, governance, cultural, scientific, medical, environmental, intellectual and social norms and guiding principles of our country under the Trump Administration. And I am working to generate an ever-growing list of possible ideas for making a positive impact in these challenging times, in particular when talking to individuals who are working from a different understanding of what is actually happening (often due to different information sources), or on the other hand, who actually approve of the current state of affairs.

Given my life’s work—creating and sharing an innovative pedagogical approach to values-driven leadership called “Giving Voice To Values” (GVV)—it feels somewhat hypocritical to claim that I cannot find a way to act in the service of my values as our nation and our world face so many crises. Of course, the focus of my work, originally, was restricted to business ethics and business education where I spent most of my professional career. But this seems a thin and insufficient excuse for refraining from today’s challenges. And so I keep trying to find ways to apply some of the hard-won lessons of my own work to our current situation.

Temperamentally, I am more of a bridge builder than a flame thrower and I do believe that this somewhat calmer approach can frequently be very effective. One of the lessons of my work with “Giving Voice To Values” is that when voicing and enacting our values, we are often more likely to act and even to be effective if we play to our individual strengths. That is not to say that there are not times when acting “against type” may be required—when stakes are so high and/or time is so short that the introvert, risk averse individual must stand up and shout, or when the risk-taking extrovert must find a way to reach across an ideological divide through patience and listening. In fact, acting “against type” in such situations may even be more impactful simply because it comes as a surprise to others who are accustomed to one’s usual approach.

However, in general, we are most likely to act and to be effective when we find ways to frame our challenges such that they are amenable to our particular style of voice and action. And it is that insight that made the Danish examples shared in Flicker’s essay so resonant to me. A passage that especially stood out to me is: “The Danes used empathy politically—an action abhorred by right-wing leaders, who have gone so far as to brand it as an enemy and a weakness. But what they are leaving unsaid is that fascism cannot prosper where empathy exists.”

Flicker goes on to explain that “The Danes’ unified refusal to indulge hate and their insistence that there was no ‘Jewish question’ overtook their more powerful opponent, dashing their plans and even changing some of the German occupiers’ mindsets, standing in stark contrast to the compliance of most other European countries.” Flicker explains that the Danish refusal to villainize Jews meant that the Nazi narrative could not take hold with them. Flicker describes Danes’ use of “empathy” as a way to hold onto their humanity toward their Jewish neighbors, a response we see today reflected in those citizens who defend their immigrant neighbors from deportation and arrest threats. These citizens are simply being “who they are”—that is, people who care about their neighbors. But I think this empathy can operate in another way as well. It can trigger an expectation of humane behavior from those we see as oppressors. Flicker cites Hannah Arendt’s observation that: “Denmark is the only case we know of in which the Nazis met with open native resistance, and the result seems to have been that those exposed to it changed their minds.… Their ‘toughness’ had melted like butter in the sun.”

I believe I found this so compelling precisely because it seemed to align with my own preferred and most comfortable approach. I am prone to trying to find the places where I can agree with or at least understand others, by trying to see where they are coming from—that is, to utilize empathy—and then to look for ways to validate any part of their views that I can agree with or at least sympathize with, while finding ways to share my own views, hopefully to a more receptive audience. Of course, the risk in this approach is that it can lead to suppressing my own views at times or even causing me to doubt my own judgment (not always a bad thing) but in general, my approach has served me well. I don’t suggest finding ways to agree with viewpoints that I find dangerous or inhumane, but rather to find ways to empathize with the needs or fears or concerns that may have brought another to their stance so as to better connect with them—and perhaps to identify and reveal an “off-ramp” to them so they may walk back from positions while still retaining some sense of personal dignity.

However despite the tendencies or aspirations described above, when confronting some of the most alarming actions and positions that I see around me in today’s political landscape, and in particular in conversation with those who hold those positions, I find my own anger triggered. And I feel myself reaching for my strongest or even harshest arguments—sometimes expressed in extreme terms that are less than totally accurate—in an effort to push back against positions that threaten or appall me. I leave my best skills and any empathy behind and resort to anger and a more aggressive posture—stances that do not play to my strengths and that leave me feeling agitated and less powerful. It’s as if I feel a need, a pressure even to immediately erase the positions that I find cruel or inhumane or undemocratic or just simply untrue. It’s as if letting them rest in the air, for even a moment, feels like a threat or an acceptance—an abdication of my own truth and my own values. Although such intense feelings may sometimes be motivating, too often this sense of urgency disarms me, leaving me both agitated and ineffective.

It’s as if all the insights and lessons I have learned, developed and shared throughout my career abandon me at the moment when they are most needed. I have been struggling with this tendency. And of course, I recognize that my responses are not those of everyone. There are many who find their righteous anger to be fueling and who use it quite skillfully and powerfully. But for those who tend to respond as I do, I wanted to explore possible useful strategies.

Coincidentally and fortuitously, I read Flicker’s essay shortly after a visit with my Family who live in a different state and who (mostly) hold political and religious views quite different from my own. They are life-long Republicans and what I like to call “super-Catholics.” I, on the other hand, am a Democrat and an atheist. Nevertheless, we were raised in the same Family and I believe I share many fundamental values with my two sisters and their respective spouses, children, and grand-children. Yet during my visits with them, I find myself pulled between two reactionary—and equally unsatisfactory—poles when any of the issues we disagree upon surface. I either avoid the topic altogether and remain mute, or I react with a blazing anger, laced with contempt. Obviously neither response is optimal or leads to clarity, let alone some mutual learning or common ground or influence.

In response to my failure in these communications, I turned to my own work with GVV. What lessons can I draw upon in these difficult exchanges? I already mentioned the idea of playing to one’s strengths. But the core idea behind GVV is that we are more likely to say and act on our values if we have rehearsed, even pre-scripted. And that we are more likely to be effective if we frame challenges in ways that not only play to our own strengths but also are mindful and responsive to the risks and stakes that we may be asking our listeners to take on by entertaining our views. The idea is not to give up my views and values or “water them down”, but rather to find the places where we share values and build on those. And to look for ways to mitigate—or at least acknowledge—the risks we may be asking our conversational partner to take on.

And so given the emphasis upon “empathy” in my own work and in my own preferred style of communication and connection, I began to develop a taxonomy of the values that I believe I share with my Family, and hopefully with many others who have taken very different political positions from me. My hope is that by articulating and building upon this list, I can find a way—MY way—to use empathy as a means to connect with and potentially find some influence with those who have seemed to be ideologically poles apart in this challenging historical moment.

My plan is to generate this list, along with some ideas about how best to communicate about them and some reflection questions…and then to share this with my Family, inviting a conversation. I hope that this may trigger more and better communication than my current strategies of avoidance and/or anger. And hopefully, if these are ideas are helpful, I will share them with others in the hope of building a better set of communication muscles around such critical issues.

One more important point: I am not suggesting that strong resistance in the face of challenges to our democracy, our environment and our humanity is not important or necessary. It is! And there are those with whom I believe I truly do not have much common ground at all. But there are also many with whom I believe there can be enough of that common ground to find ways to work together toward a better future.

We will disagree about methods but I believe we can agree upon a respect for our shared humanity and worth—an agreement that will enable us to work together. And at a minimum, this respect should allow us to value each other’s lives; to sometimes disagree fiercely about methods but to still acknowledge the worth and value of the lives of those with whom we disagree.

Values That (I think) We Share

The Value of Life Itself — Although we may disagree upon specific issues — abortion rights, the value of vaccines, the role of immigrants in our country, etc. — we agree that Life is valuable, a gift to be respected, treasured, and protected. We may disagree about when this life begins but can we agree to value an expectant Mother’s life? We may disagree about how best to protect health when faced with a pandemic but can we agree that medical science research is critical and that profit-driven, non-scientists are not the best source of strategies? We may disagree about the appropriate role of immigrants in this nation, but can we agree that all persons deserve to be treated humanely and justly, to receive due process, and that children should not be separated from their families and sent to foreign countries without recourse and records? Can we agree that we share a desire and commitment to valuing and respecting life despite our differences on how to achieve that commitment? Can we recognize and respect that desire in each of us? And then look for ways to understand where our different views come from, the knowledge and/or faiths that they are based upon, and finally work together to find paths forward that encourage the best for all of us — even if that means allowing for others to live differently than ourselves in some ways?
Equal Rights — Just as we agree that we value and respect life itself, we agree that our country is founded on principles of “equal rights” for all people. We agree that the United States has never achieved this principle but it is a commitment toward which we must continue to strive. We agree that citizens and non-citizens alike are entitled to due process, to respect, to humane treatment. We don’t have to agree to accept everyone’s views but we agree that they have the right to hold them. And we don’t have to agree to respect/accept everyone’s behavior but we agree that actions to curtail those behaviors must be guided by the law and a commitment to humane treatment.
Free Speech — We agree that we all have the right to think and express our viewpoints — as long as their expression does not endanger others (e.g., “Don’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”) — but that right comes along with the responsibility to think carefully about our views, to test them before spreading them. And we recognize that others have the right and even the responsibility not only to express their own views but also to test, confirm or disconfirm and respond to our views. This includes the rights of whistle-blowers to share credible reports, without retaliation, as they are often the only way to provide a check on power.
The Rule of Law — We agree that respect for the Law is necessary for our society to function in a coherent, safe and equitable manner. Although we may not always think that our laws are sufficient or even appropriate, we agree that a lawful approach to changing/correcting those laws that may be flawed is important (e.g., legal appeals, voting). And we agree that the rule of law should be respected, even as we may work to change it. And this would include respecting due process for all individuals, whether they are eventually found guilty of crimes or not. We agree that this respect for due process — in the end — protects us all.
Democracy — We agree that a democratic approach to governance is good and necessary, and that people should not be prevented from voting. Lawful voting should not be discouraged or made more difficult and lawful votes should be counted. Efforts to encourage voting and to make lawful voting easier should be undertaken. And we understand and accept that sometimes our preferred candidates or policies may not prevail in a lawful election. And we agree that the separation of powers outlined in our nation’s Constitution serves a critical purpose and must be respected. Consolidating power in one branch of the government leads to authoritarianism — the antithesis of democracy.
Truth — We agree that there is a difference between truth and falsehood, fact and opinion, fact and myth, reality and conspiracy. Just because someone believes something to be true does not make it so. And we agree that we have a responsibility to find, confirm, reveal and share truth — whether that is found in evidence-based scientific, medical and historical knowledge and research or whether it is found in honest and complete and unbiassed journalism. We recognize the great power of social media, of art, of public discourse and we agree that we have the obligation to use these tools with integrity and care. We value an honest engagement with our country’s history even when it reveals our mistakes and transgressions, whether that is slavery or internment camps or corruption, because that honest engagement is what enables us to learn and avoid future mistakes. And we agree that it is important and essential to educate ourselves and our fellows to distinguish misinformation from fact. And we recognize that a commitment to free speech does not mean that any idea is as valid or true as any other; rather it is a recognition that we have a right to think and express our viewpoints but that we should take responsibility for testing those views before we spread them. And we agree that others have the right and even the responsibility to test, confirm or disconfirm, and respond to those views.

This is the beginning of a list of values that I think we share.

My first questions are:

Do you agree that these values are, in fact, shared with me?
- If yes, can we talk about them and consider ways to understand the places where we differ? And perhaps come to some agreements but at least find ways to value each other’s lives despite those differences?
- If no, can we talk about why you don’t agree that we share these fundamental values and see if clarifications will move us closer? And again, at least find ways to value each other’s lives and right to differ?
Are there other shared values that you would suggest adding to this list? Can we discuss those?
Does recognizing these shared values help us to find ways to disagree more productively when we differ?

PART TWO

Thoughts About How To Communicate About and Across Differences

My next questions are:

In light of the suggestion in PART ONE of this essay that there are a set of values that we do, in fact, share despite other disagreements, what are some thoughts about how we can approach our differences in ways that reflect these values and therefore better communicate with each other?

These are some of the thoughts I have had so far:

Take Encouragement and Lessons from HISTORY: “History as Hope” == “This is our Moment.”

“History as Hope”
A number of years ago, I had the privilege of working with the Fellowship at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) to develop and deliver educational experiences to young professionals across different fields: business, journalism, medicine, law, the clergy, technology. The experiences were based upon lessons from history, informed by the power of place, examining what professionals in each of those fields had done—for good or for ill (often the latter)—during the period of the Holocaust. The idea was to learn from their experiences and to then consider what those lessons can teach us given the values conflicts of the present day for those same professions. While it may seem counter-intuitive, spending time immersing myself in the darkness of that period also gave me a sense that “history is hope.” That is, I recognized that despite the tragic losses, there were nations/people who had gone through such horrors and had survived and in some cases triumphed. This led me to consider other such tragic and challenging periods across time and place and to try to learn from the positive strategies…and to realize that everything changes. This gives me hope as we face the current challenges in our times.

“This is our moment”
When I was a little girl, I used to wonder what I would have done if I had lived in Germany in the ’30s. Who would I have been? I believe that this is the opportunity of our current situation: This is our moment. We have the opportunity to make a choice, and we have the gift of the knowledge of what happened in previous periods of history to inform our choices.

How to Act

My predilection as evidenced in my work with “Giving Voice To Values” always is to focus on what I/we can DO in the face of such overwhelming challenges and when confronting individuals who attempt to force compliance with behaviors that violate our deepest values. So I have come up with a list of approaches, tactics, and mindsets that fall under 3 headings: CALM, COMPETENCE, COMPASSION

CALM

Breathe – I need to keep breathing rather than feeling as if I need to jump into every disagreement and express every thought that I have. Taking time to breathe not only helps to remain calm so I can tap into my strengths, it also enables the next suggestion: “Pause.”
PAUSE – Taking a pause when I encounter statements or directions with which I disagree allows me to consider where I want to begin; which comment I wish to respond to; what question of clarification I may want to ask BEFORE I respond; and so on. And that pause can also allow my conversation partner to have a moment to hear and think about what he or she just said – rather than also succumbing to knee-jerk reactions and then feeling trapped in defending something that may not be exactly what they intended.
Be selective. I don’t have to respond to everything. Consider where to focus; build on my strengths; my positioning; my readiness; etc. Responding to something is better than responding to nothing; but if I feel I have to counter every argument or comment, I often become less compelling, less thoughtful, less easy to truly be heard and understood. My responses may begin to feel like an effort to “erase” my conversation partner and his/her comments rather than to truly communicate.
Consider my motivation. Commit to respond to comments and actions with which I disagree because I want to do so for MYSELF and for the way I feel about myself. My motivation is based on my commitment to be the person I want to be, rather than based on a calculation that my response is necessarily going to change another person. Acting from this internal motivation helps me to give space to the person with whom I am interacting. I am not trying to force them to be someone else. I am revealing who I am to them, with the hope that they will be motivated to engage openly, honestly with me. (Karl Weick, an esteemed organizational psychologist wrote: “We justify what we do, not by belief in its efficacy but by an acceptance of its necessity….To view optimism as a duty rather than as something tied to unsteady expectations of success is to position oneself in a sufficient variety of places with sufficient confidence that events may be set in motion that provide substance for that hope.” (“Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems”, American Psychologist, January 1984).

COMPETENT

From Values Conflicts to Differences around Implementation Strategies. Try to shift a discussion across conflicting positions from a conversation about values conflicts to a conversation about implementation strategies. Find the shared values held in common and then frame discussions as problem-solving to find the most effective implementation strategy to support those values, as opposed to a discussion framed as if we don’t value any of the same things.
Play to our strengths. There are many ways to make a point, or a decision, or an impact. An assertive, aggressive, risk-taking personality will be most effective in a very different way than the introverted, conservative, risk-averse personality. They can both act effectively but they will need to frame their objective in a way that plays to their strengths.
Use Stories to make my points, especially stories about myself that illustrate a change or a learning or a vulnerability in myself. Modeling change and my own openness to learn can invite my conversation partner to consider the same in themselves, and revealing my own willingness to learn helps my partner to feel less defensive, less threatened or demeaned by my arguments.
Respond to the EMOTION in another’s position before responding to the FACTS. If they are angry, acknowledge that. If they are fearful, share that I am sometimes afraid as well. Try to find a part of their anger I can share: for example, sharing a desire for justice. Or try to find a way to calm their fear: for example, sharing a desire for and commitment to safe communities. And then invite them to build on the shared desires that underlie the emotions.
Allies are essential. Find them, develop them, support them, spend time with them. This is part of self-care as well as building momentum.
Appeal to shared values. This idea is the foundation of this entire essay; see the list of proposed values above, incomplete as it may be. When trying to identify values that we share with others, it is important to recognize that we don’t have to share EVERY value – just the core values that enable each of us to be fully and securely ourselves. And of course, to be fully ourselves, by definition, means that we also have differences. That is necessary, unavoidable and enriching.
Understand that there may be many different reasons for another individual holding a particular Point of View. Don’t assume that I know; ask questions. And when I respond to their point of view, identify the positive reasons and motivations that they may have and respond to those. For example, respond to and build upon their desire for security rather than their condemnation of a perceived “enemy.” This allows the person I am speaking with to hear me without having to feel attacked. I am simply giving them an alternative way to think about themselves and inviting them to address their concerns in a different way.
Acknowledge the risks or limitations of our views; remain open to ways to mitigate those risks or limitations. I can try to model an openness to learning, expecially if it can be from my conversation partner.
Anticipate the sorts of arguments and viewpoints we may encounter; pre-script & rehearse responses. I am more effective if I can remain calm and respectful and I can do so if I am more prepared.
Stay informed. This means being willing to change my own mind if/when I encounter new information. And acknowledging the times when I may have changed my views gives me greater credibility with those who disagree with me.
Ask questions, listen. Do this FIRST. Do this throughout the conversation. Conclude with this. This is important both because it provides valuable context and information but also because it allows my conversation partner to feel and be an active participant in the discussion – someone who can both influence and be influenced.
Provide short term as well as long term arguments and reasons for our positions. This is important because we know that people tend to discount the future and over-weight the near term.
Recognize that I often have more choices than I think! Remain open to that possibility.
Utilize the “Giving Voice To Values Thought Experiment” by asking “WHAT IF”: “What if” we found a new way to think about ______ (e.g., immigration, abortion, taxation, pandemic responses, free markets, free speech, guns, national security, etc.)?” Starting from scratch, what would we want that to look like?
Recognize that I am not alone (not the only one who thinks what I think) but I will never know that or who else thinks similarly unless I express my views
Beware ‘loss aversion,” where I miss new opportunities, new directions because of striving to get back to “the way it was.” Sometimes the only way forward to a better and shared future is to find something different from either one’s vision of what was past.

COMPASSION

A psychiatrist once shared that if we want those who disagree with us to truly hear and understand —and hopefully accept—our ideas, we need to present them in such a way that our listeners “don’t have to stand in a place of humiliation” in order to hear/understand them. In other words, acknowledge shared values; recognize the best in their motivations; speak from a place of humility (“I need to learn from you as well.”); offer an invitation to be part of something bigger than both of us; etc.
Consider/ask/acknowledge what will be lost/gained. It’s important to be honest about the costs and benefits of change, while arguing that it is still needed.
Patience. I don’t necessarily know if/when my outreach has made an impact. Keep the door open, leaving space for individuals to return in their own time.
Anticipate, recognize, respect, respond to the fact that others will respond to us with a variety of emotions, often at the same time (and often conflicting). Allow space for that. Be prepared for that. Don’t assume that an initial response represents the entire impact of my efforts.

Next Steps

My hope is that this sort of exchange may help many of us to find ways to better understand each other; to more fully communicate, even about our disagreements; and hopefully to find some core areas of agreement that we can collectively work on with the goal of finding our way back to the ground where we can disagree—fiercely sometimes but always respectfully and healthily—about implementation strategies in the service of the values we share.

I am sharing this document and inviting you to improve it. As mentioned above, I am attempting to find a way to act in the service of my values—to give them voice—and to do so by ‘playing to my strengths.” I invite others to share this and discuss as well if you think it may be useful.

One More Important Thought

I want to reiterate that I am not suggesting that strong resistance in the face of challenges to our democracy, our environment and our basic humanity, our sense of connection to and compassion for and responsibility toward our fellow humans and all the living creatures in our world is not absolutely necessary. IT IS! And so I know it is essential for me to engage in peaceful protests and to support those who are working through our legal and electoral systems to protect and restore a commitment to the shared values I describe above.

And I also understand that there are some individuals for whom the approaches I describe above are not likely to have an impact. However, I firmly believe that there are far more individuals who may be moved by such an approach; who likely share many of the values, concerns and motivations I describe; and who may find it appealing, renewing — even a relief — to find ways to engage civilly and genuinely in connection with me. It is for myself and for those individuals that I wrote this and with whom I plan to share it.