Understanding Values in Context

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Demonstrate that disagreements often stem from differing priorities and definitions rather than a lack of shared core values.

Use it when: Use before addressing polarized group decisions where members assume disagreements stem from bad motives rather than differing value rankings.

Skip it when: Skip when the group has immediate operational tasks with no time for reflection, or when members cannot discuss contested issues respectfully.

Group arrangement: Individual ranking followed by small groups of 3 or 4 (pairs or a group of 5 used as needed for uneven totals), ending in a whole-room debrief.

Timing: Source step allocations total 45 minutes (5 min baseline ranking, 10 min definition sharing, 20 min context sorting, 10 min debrief).

Materials and tools

• One set of 10 printed value slips per participant (Security, Community, Prosperity, Responsibility, Inclusion, Equality, Tradition, Opportunity, Justice, Freedom)
• Two pre-printed Context Case Cards per group or a shared central display showing both cases
• Scratch paper and pen per participant
• Digital whiteboard or text-card template if running online

Before participants arrive

1. Pre-cut sets of 10 value slips for each participant.
2. Print Context Case Cards or queue them on a shared screen.
3. Place one slip set, scratch paper, and a pen at each seat.

Say this to open

Groups often do not clash because someone rejects fundamental values. Conflict usually happens because people rank those values differently or interpret them differently depending on the issue. Today we will examine how our own priorities shift as context changes. Please spread out the ten value slips in front of you.

How to run it

1. Rank baseline top five 5 minutes

   Speak the opening script. Ask participants to arrange all 10 slips vertically, placing their highest personal priority at the top and lowest at the bottom. Instruct everyone to note their top 5 values on scratch paper for the next step, but keep all 10 slips nearby for later rounds.

2. Compare definitions in small groups 10 minutes

   Form groups of 3 or 4. If numbers do not divide evenly, form pairs or a group of 5. Each person names two of their top five values and gives a 30-second definition of what that word means to them. For example, one person might define Security as steady personal savings, while another defines it as physical neighborhood safety. Groups note similarities and different interpretations without debating which view is correct.

3. Re-rank under specific issues 20 minutes

   Present Issue 1 (Student Loan Forgiveness) from the Context Case Cards. Give participants 2 minutes of silence to re-sort all 10 slips based on which values should guide that specific decision. For the next 8 minutes, small groups take turns sharing which values moved to the top and why. Next, present Issue 2 (Mandatory Workplace Vaccinations). Repeat the process: 2 minutes of individual re-sorting and 8 minutes of small-group discussion on shifts in rankings and definitions.

4. Debrief whole group 10 minutes

   Bring the full room together. Hear brief comments from 3 to 5 volunteers on how their priorities or definitions shifted between contexts. Close by summarizing how recognizing divergent value orders supports practical collaboration.

Debrief questions

• Did your top values shift between the baseline and the specific issues, and what prompted that shift?
• Did you notice yourself defining a word differently when the topic changed?
• How does knowing that others hold the same values in a different order help resolve team disagreements?

Finished output: Personal sorted lists of values across two distinct contexts and documented observations on differing value definitions.

Remote

Provide a shared digital board with individual workspaces containing 10 movable digital cards. Participants rank cards in silence on their assigned frames. For small-group phases, send groups of 3 or 4 to breakout rooms to discuss definitions and re-sortings. Reconvene in the main room and collect spoken or chat reflections.

Hybrid

In-person participants handle physical slips while remote participants use personal digital card boards. Keep remote participants together in dedicated breakout rooms and in-person participants at physical tables to avoid audio echo. Share the Context Case Cards on the common screen.

Access and participation choices

• Provide large-print value cards or a pre-numbered digital document for screen-reader users.
• Participants may freely pass on sharing their personal rankings or definitions during small-group rounds without giving a reason.

If the session gets stuck

Participants start arguing about the political merits of the case rather than examining underlying values.

Intervene immediately and redirect: Pause on whether the policy is right or wrong. Focus strictly on which values you placed at the top to evaluate it.

A participant insists all ten values are equally important and refuses to rank them.

Acknowledge that all ten matter, then ask them to test which value must take precedence if two of them come into direct resource competition.

Terms used here

• Value Hierarchy: The relative priority an individual or group assigns to competing principles when both cannot be fully satisfied at once.