Victor Mari C.

Baguilat Jr
INSIGHT PIECE 4
1. Theory U is back- I was immensely pleased that there was a discussion on Theory U for
this session. I initially got the impression that it was just raised in the first synchronous session
and that we have already moved on to the next topic, leaving Theory U to obscurity.
I think it always helps to tie everything together and to use it as an overarching framework
so that the class can see the beauty of transcending the ego system towards co-creating an
ecosystem where we have realized the “Self”. Giving Voice to Values (GVV) could be tied neatly
as a tool to create that ecosystem.
2. Why are we not talking about what is the ethical thing to do?- This was
my initial question when we discussed the Waffle case. Everyone just assumed that the most
ethical thing to do is to lower the price and the teams focused on the practical strategic reasons
to justify it. I was bothered by this because there are a lot of situations where the ethical thing
to do has little to no pragmatic value.
What I was pointing out during the session was that I do not think the standard of what
is ethical is not in the act of setting the price of the goods but in the profit mark up because it is
possible that the owner charges a lower price but is still profiting, or for him to charge a higher
price but is only selling at cost. I guess the conversation that I was driving at is that, it is the
impulse to make profit and the intention, which has to be examined not the act alone. Whether
this is right or wrong is not the issue, I just hoping to have a deeper conversation on the WHY
and not just the HOW to justify it.
At the end of the session though, I realized why we are taking on a utilitarian/ pragmatic
framework in justifying what Reggie, the Waffle owner, should do. It is because the challenge is
to be able to convince pragmatists to see a different perspective instead of being at loggerheads
with them. The danger, however, which made me uneasy is that it assumes that a pragmatist
view is the moral standard and the we always have to justify our values in terms of its utility. But
I do recognize that we do not exist in a vacuum, there will always be conflicts in values, belief
systems and views, hence, there will always be a constant negotiation of these values, hence,
GVV is a significant tool.

3. If there is no express prohibition change Amina’s view on what is the right thing to
do? For me, there is no gray area in the Amina case largely
because there is an express prohibition against using external information in processing the
case. However, if there is none, I was pondering if my view on this would change.

4. Context being significant- I get the idea that we can get stuck in our heads
with romantic ideas of justice, equality and all those lofty ideals. It is in the specific action or
behavior, where things become contentious. I remember what our Marketing professor said. He
said that people agree that God, country and family are important, but we all do not agree as to
the order of importance. So, I think values are the same. We all value integrity, but WHEN there
is another competing value such mercy, for example, which one will we prioritize. I find this very
interesting.