Good Work

Diving into the 5Ds: Discussing & Debating

by Shelby Clark

At The Good Project when thinking about how to resolve a difficult dilemma we often apply a framework referred to as the “5Ds.” The 5Ds include:

  1. Define: Recognize the dilemma in your life;

  2. Discuss and Debate: An outward looking step, where you consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons, and probable consequences of various courses of action;

  3. Deliberate: An inward looking step, where you personally reflect on the various options available, and whether or not to take action;

  4. Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision;

  5. Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.

To date, my colleagues and I have written several blogs that incorporate the 5Ds framework (here, here, and here). Here, I hope to dive deeper into how an individual might engage in element #2 of the 5Ds framework: discussing and debating.

The scholarly literature on discussion and debate is vast and I do not intend to cover that here; instead here are a few helpful ideas or frameworks that can guide individuals as they engage in discussing and debating dilemmas.

1. Preacher, prosecutor, politician, or scientist? In his recent book, Think Again, organizational psychologist Adam Grant points out that there are a variety of ways that we can approach discussions and arguments. If we believe our beliefs are at risk, we act like a preacher and try to protect our beliefs; if we think other people’s reasoning or logic is at fault, we attack it like a prosecutor would in court; if we want to win over others, we try to persuade them like a politician would.

While each of these modes of discussion certainly has its place, Grant argues that we should really try to act more like scientists in our discussions with one another—scientists, he notes, are “expected to doubt what [they] know, be curious about what [they] don’t know, and update [their] views based on new data… we move into scientist mode when we’re searching for the truth.”

When discussing a dilemma, which of these roles are you embodying? What would it look like for you to approach your dilemma like a scientist? Grant notes that even saying “Can we debate?” at the beginning of a discussion indicates that you are more interested in approaching a discussion as a scientist—someone interested in truth—than as a preacher, prosecutor, or politician.

2. Try to have a Better Argument: The Better Arguments Project (here) is a collaboration between the Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and The Allstate Corporation that promotes the belief that individuals need to focus not on ceasing to argue, but on having better arguments. For them, better arguments include a focus on historical context, emotions, and recognizing power inherent in arguments, but such arguments also take five broad principles into account: 1) take winning off the table; 2) prioritize relationships and listen passionately; 3) pay attention to context; 4) embrace vulnerability; and 5) make room to transform. The Good Project has collaborated with the Better Arguments Project to create workbooks (here) focused on the idea that having better arguments can lead to good work.

What would your dilemma discussion look like if you focused on having a better argument around your dilemma?

3. Utilitarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist? Historically, many have looked to normative ethical frameworks (here)—those that define the standards of ethical behavior—to help guide them in their thinking about what is “right.” For example, some think about what would be right for the most amount of people (here), as a utilitarian would. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s, is primarily concerned with the consequences of an action and whether or not a particular act maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain (here) instead of whether the act itself is moral.

Deontologists (here) often believe, instead, that certain duties should be carried out and that individuals have certain inherent rights regardless of outcomes. Founded by Immanuel Kant in the 1700s, Kant argued that it was not consequences that mattered to determine whether something was moral, but rather whether the intentions or motivations of a person were good. Kant argued that certain duties were inherent to everyone (here), and, perhaps most famously, defined the “categorical imperative” as a duty that everyone must perform regardless of the end result; that is, the act itself is also the consequence and therefore morally bad acts cannot be treated as a means to a good end.

Virtue ethicists (here) believe that if you respond to a dilemma by being a good person—for example, with courage and honesty—then such habits of character will lead to a flourishing life. Founded in the teachings of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics from ancient Greece, virtue ethicists argue that habits of good character are cultivated throughout life and help individuals to respond automatically (here) with “goodness” to everyday events. Thus, it is through developing moral and intellectual character strengths, such as intellectual honesty, prudence, or responsibility, that the virtue ethicist believes an individual is able to respond with goodness to the dilemmas of life.

When discussing the pros and cons of a dilemma at hand, how do you think about what is the right course of action? Consider using our activity (here) to help you explore which of these ethical frameworks you are arguing for or against as you discuss or debate your dilemma. Perhaps you are arguing for a framework not named here, such as an ethic of care (a relationship focused ethical framework), or for a religious-based framework.

4. Learn how to “disagree well”: Paul Graham, an internet pioneer, in his 2008 essay “How to Disagree” (here) laid out in pyramidal form a hierarchy of disagreements (here).

●     At the bottom of the pyramid is name calling.

●     Individuals then progress into ad hominem arguments, wherein individuals attack a person rather than their argument.

●     Next is “responding to tone”—the person responds to the content of an argument, but simply the tone in which it is said (e.g. a “flippant” argument).

●     Next is contradiction, where one just states an opposing argument without evidence.

●     This is followed by counterargument—a contradiction combined with evidence and reasoning.

●     Following counterargument is refutation—quoting someone’s argument and explaining the mistake in this quoted argument.

●     Finally, “refuting the central point”—finding someone’s central thread, refuting it, and then giving evidence to back up one’s argument.

As you discuss a dilemma, be aware of how you are disagreeing. What level of the hierarchy of disagreement are you at?

5. Build common ground. Scholars from a number of disciplinary backgrounds indicate that the best way to change other’s minds is to first build common ground with one another rather than throwing facts and logic around. Building friendships, showing care and civility towards one another (here), and building positive emotion is the first step towards opening the door to further discussion, sparking curiosity, and potentially changing one another’s minds. Consider exploring the research of organizations like More in Common (here) to help share ways that groups can reach across divides.

When you discuss a dilemma, are you looking for ways to reach out to others? Reflect on how you are attending to positive emotions and civil discussion as you think and converse about dilemmas.

As mentioned above, there are certainly many more discussion and debate frameworks, and some may be more appropriate for your population of students or for certain discussions over others. For myself, I am naturally drawn to Grant’s framework of preachers, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists. I often feel that I can fall into all three of these “P” roles; I am known to adamantly defend my beliefs, to attempt to persuade others of the faults in their logic, and I am sometimes competitive to a fault. Yet, my work has also been focused on developing adolescents’ intellectual virtues, like curiosity, and the essence of intellectual virtues is about trying to find epistemic truth. That is, how can curiosity, or open-mindedness, or intellectual humility help us better understand “truth”? As such, through my work I am constantly reminded of my role as a scientist—I want to dig deeper, and know more, even if it goes against my own beliefs.

We’d love to hear from you if you’ve found any routines or frameworks useful in your work discussing or debating our dilemmas. Contact us here.

May Round-up: Top Five Articles

by Kirsten McHugh

As we gear up for a long holiday weekend in the U.S. and the unofficial kick-off to summer, our team at The Good Project would like to share content that has inspired discussion and deeper thinking amongst our group in recent weeks. We hope you find these ideas a compelling way to wrap up your month.

  1. As the end of this very strange academic year draws to a close, many graduates will leave their institutions to join their respective professional ranks in a bit of a fog. Earlier this month, Harvard Law Today published a piece on the 2021 Last Lecture Series (link here). Select faculty were asked to share their words of wisdom with the graduating class in this annual tradition. This year’s group of faculty did not disappoint in their offerings of hope and motivation for the future.

  2. In more of a “listen” than “read” mood? Check out this recent podcast episode from NYT’s The Ezra Klein Show in which Ezra interviews Anna Sale of Death, Sex, and Money (link here). The two discuss how to best approach “difficult conversations”—how to be a good listener and a good communicator. 

  3. In case you missed it, our colleagues at The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues recently hosted a panel discussion on “Virtues in the Professions” (link here). The panel featured Dr. Sabena Jameel from the University of Birmingham, Professor David Bogle from the University College London, and Major Dr. Scott Parsons from the United States Military Academy West Point. Together, the group discussed ethics and dilemmas across engineering, the military, and medicine. Want more? Don’t miss the upcoming conference “Character and Virtues in the Professions” (link here). 

  4. An unprecedented number of American women made the difficult decision to leave work during the pandemic in order to care for their families. Now that the country is starting to reopen, how do these women return to the workplace? Check out this short segment from NPR to learn how one group aims to help women reverse course and get back to the office (link here). 

  5. When we talk about supporting our outermost Rings of Responsibility (link here), we often find ourselves discussing civics and citizenship. The Good Project Director Lynn Barendsen has thought a lot about this sector over the years. In her most recent blog (link here), Barendsen describes her connection to the Civic Collaboratory (link here), shares highlights of the impressive work being done in this realm by some Collaboratory members, and announces The Good Project’s Good Civics series (link here).

Wrestling with Good Citizenship

by Lynn Barendsen

Recently, I had the privilege to gather (virtually) with the Civic Collaboratory (link), a national group of civic and social innovators.  We represent a variety of domains (education, advocacy, the arts, technology and more) and are positioned across the political spectrum.  Many of us spend our days grappling with the tough questions of our day: how do we go about bridging the gaps that divide our country; what is the place of civic dialogue and social cohesion when we believe there are still deep injustices to rectify; how can we develop a shared language when we have fundamentally different truths?

I don’t have all the answers to these difficult questions, but I firmly believe we need to keep wrestling with our responses. In that spirit, I wanted to highlight some important initiatives and opportunities

  • Read Pearce Goodwin’s editorial (link) to learn more about a two-day event creating thousands of conversations between Americans with differing opinions.  The initiative is called “America Talks” and you can sign up yourself to participate by clicking here.

  • Watch the new documentary Our Towns (link), based on James and Deborah Fallows’ book, Our Towns:  100,000 Mile Journey into the Heart of America to learn about hundreds of local restorative initiatives around the country.  Both the documentary and the book illustrate how community and the building of a common language can help us to navigate our differences.

  • And if you haven’t already, please have a look at our recent blog series on Good Citizenship by clicking the button below:



Good Work and “Unlearning” in Times of Transition

by Danny Mucinskas

Drawing on two decades of research, The Good Project aims to help people of all ages, from young students to veteran professionals, in their efforts to do “good work.” Such work is conceptualized as excellent (high quality), ethical (socially responsible), and engaging (personally meaningful). These “3 Es of good work” are the pillars that support a productive and virtuous relationship to work. 

Similarly, the Learning Innovations Laboratory (LILA) at Project Zero is a long-standing initiative that brings together researchers and practitioners to ideate together regarding organizational change and learning. For the past twenty-one years, the group has developed insights into the nature of human learning and change on the individual and systemic levels, including in workplaces.

Over the course of a lifetime, the work that an individual does will change many times. According to the American Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals today may have held 12 to 15 different jobs by the time they reach retirement. Most of us therefore expect to go through many points of transition that require the reinvention of our career identities, as well as “unlearning” of habits, mindsets, and systemic knowledge from previous roles.

While the process of transitioning to a new role can be daunting in itself, it becomes even more difficult when previous modes of thinking and doing are no longer useful and in fact may get in the way. By paying attention to areas that might require adjustment and new approaches, “good work” can continue to be achieved.

These topics were explored in a new course, titled “Navigating Transitions: Unlearning and Good Work,” which I have developed in partnership with Marga Biller of LILA. The course was recently presented as a pilot to a group of learners in Singapore in collaboration with the Singapore Institute of Management, with a focus on helping participants navigate career transitions by becoming familiar with practices of “unlearning.”

As facilitators, Marga and I began with an introduction to the idea that transitions are part of everyday life and can be times of both excitement and anxiety. We then explored existing conceptions of “good work” that participants hold related to their current jobs and probed their relationship to the 3 Es framework. Next, we delved into the various dimensions of “unlearning” that require attention in order to successfully move from one role to another, specifically:

  • Mindsets we bring to our work based on our past experiences, including values, identities, and expertise (for example, an understanding of our skill sets and how skills might need to shift in new roles);

  • Habits we rely on in doing our work (which are shaped by cues, routines, and rewards, and which can be changed by paying attention to cycles of habit formation), 

  • Systems we are embedded within (including organizations and teams with members who may or may not share the same goals related to work and the learning ecologies around us that support life-long learning). 

Participants were invited to reflect on these themes in exercises that included The Good Project’s value sort activity, an identity map, and the design of a learning ecology based on resources in and outside of the workplace. We also used a dilemma narrative about an employee starting a new position who made a mistake by relying excessively on past knowledge rather than meeting the requirements of her new job, analyzing what she could have done differently to succeed.

Reactions to the course from the initial audience were positive. Interviews and surveys revealed overall appreciation for the unique blend of content that combined research insights with practical models that would aid people in successfully handling career transition. Based on the feedback we received, in future offerings of the unit, participants will spend extended time exploring the concepts as well as implementation intentions in between sessions. We seek to provide more explicit suggestions about how employees can readily and appropriately apply the ideas we introduced on the job and with co-workers.

Our ultimate goal in offering this course is to help people deal with workplace change, equipping them with the tools and strategies they will need to do their best good work across the span of their careers. As a result, we are considering ways to expand further iterations of this course for adult audiences in Singapore and perhaps elsewhere.

I invite our readers to ask themselves some of the following questions that were explored in the course.

  • What are some ways that unlearning preexisting mindsets, habits, and systemic knowledge could help you to better do good work in your own life?

  • What values, identities, and expertise do you bring to your work? How have these changed from previous positions you may have held?

  • What habits do you rely on in doing your work? Have you ever had a habit that was no longer serving you that you needed to change? How did you do so?

  • How does the way you view your work overlap with or differ from your coworkers’ views? How can you open conversations that might spark dialogue about areas of difference?

  • What is the relationship your work has to the broader communities you are a part of, such as your town, city, or society? How does your work affect people near and far from you?

  • What responsibilities do you feel you have in your work to others?

April Round-up: Top Five Articles

by Kirsten McHugh

April Round-Up: Top Five Articles

Here in the Northeast US, the trees are budding, and we are thankfully beginning to shake off the harsh winter weather. Along with a bit of additional sunlight each day, we at The Good Project have been staying energized with some great reads. 

We hope you find the following resources and articles helpful. 

Without further ado, here are our “top five” picks for the month of April.

  1. The Right Question Institute has recently released new remote resources for teaching their “Question Formulation Technique.” If you aren’t familiar with their work, the Right Question Institute’s mission is “to make democracy work better by teaching a strategy that allows anyone, no matter their educational, income, or literacy level, to learn to ask better questions and participate more effectively in decisions that affect them.” They have pulled together tools, guides, templates, and webinars for easy access in building this method into coursework. 

  2. Workers in nearly every domain have faced enormous challenges in adapting to the pandemic, but teachers have had a particularly rough go of it. NPR’s Kavitha Cardoza explores the effect that chronic stress is having on teachers and, in turn, their students.

  3. In his latest piece, Craig Lambert of The Harvard Gazette features the work of Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. In the article, Wallace describes some of the most poignant moments of his career—from moderating the first of the 2020 presidential debates to interviewing Vladimir Putin. Wallace, Lambert argues, does not hide his political views, though he is decidedly non-partisan when it comes to which candidates he chooses to support. 

    There are no “rules” in journalism regarding whether or not a reporter should reveal their own beliefs. Some, like Wallace, choose to be transparent in their views. On the flip side, the argument can be made for “disinterestedness” in the profession.

  4. Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic examines the label “low-skill” in her article “Low-Skill Workers Aren’t a Problem to Be Fixed.” Lowrey argues that the term unfairly belittles large swaths of the essential American workforce. 

  5. This month, we witnessed the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. For resources and support regarding how to discuss these kinds of issues in learning groups, we turn to Facing History and Ourselves. Check out new resources that provide guidance about introducing the trial to students and helping them to understand the processes of the American justice system.