The Value of Axiology
Never heard of Axiology? I’m not surprised. Axiology is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is not a conversation about what are your values, but rather how we value things.
Many among us are not interested in philosophy. However, I have found that studying various philosophical perspectives can be a great teacher for us to understand the world. My eldest son was a philosophy major. When he first shared that he wanted to study philosophy, I expressed concern. Why not study something you can use to go out in the world and get a job? With the contempt of an 18-year-old, he said to me, “Dad, what you got was a pre-professional degree. Those types of degrees teach you what to think; a liberal arts degree teaches you how to think.”
I was recently introduced to the 2005 commencement address at Kenyon College by author, David Foster Wallace. In that address, he suggested that a liberal arts degree does not teach you how to think, but rather teaches you that you have a choice about what to think about. Unfortunately, too many of us do not think but rather repeat what others have taught us, whether it be parents, clergy, teachers, professors, friends, or colleagues. True thinking is not common.
Dr. Robert Hartman spent many years thinking about and developing a way to use mathematics to discover or uncover how people value things, to quantify Axiology. He ultimately did and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
Hartman determined there are three broad value categories: intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic. Or more simply: people, tasks, and systems. His work revealed that there should be a natural order of things. People are more valuable than tasks which are more valuable than systems. Said another way, people solve problems using systems and structure to support them.
And the degree to which we value these value categories directly correlates to an individual's judgment and decision-making capabilities.
When a person dramatically over or undervalues any of these three value categories in comparison to the other categories, it severely impacts one’s judgment and decision making. With this knowledge, we can utilize observation to reveal how people value things and see the impact.
Dr. Hartman set out on his journey to try to explain how the Holocaust could have happened. Which is to say, how did so many people align with and value the Nazi Party’s ideology that they were willing to work and contribute to the massacre of over 6 million Jews and over 11 million people? This is a clear demonstration of people dramatically valuing an ideology disproportionally over people.
While this is an extreme example, it’s not uncommon. There are political leaders around the world that value their system of government over their people by a disproportionate degree and use their power to suppress and control their citizens. This disproportionate valuing of ideas over people is not uncommon or limited to political leaders.
Over the centuries, this is also true of religions. A client recently shared with me that family members ostracized another family member, never to speak with them again because they either did or valued something different from the values of the other person's religion. Strong ideological viewpoints have pitted family members against family members, people against people, think Catholics vs. Protestants, or nations against nations for generations. These are all examples of people valuing their ideology disproportionally over people. I know of Jewish people who disowned their children because they did not marry someone Jewish. How tragic.
It’s not limited to these big subjects. Once I learned the Axiological science as to how to measure how people value things, I came to believe that Andy Reid would never win a Super Bowl. I made this assessment when Andy Reid was coaching the Philadelphia Eagles, my hometown team. It was obvious to me that he disproportionately valued his offensive system over his players’ skills. He used to say over and over, “The guys just have to run the system.” To magnify the situation, he disproportionately valued his players over tasks. I made this evaluation because he struggled to manage the second half of games when his team was behind. He could no longer rely on his game plan but rather he needed to adjust to the circumstances unfolding on the field in real-time. This is task-oriented and historically, in my opinion, he has struggled in this area. This is also why throughout his career he has struggled with clock/time management and when to throw the challenge flag.
Please do not misunderstand me, I do not dislike Andy Reid. In fact, I believe he’s an offensive genius and has been able to evolve his offensives for over 20+ years in the NFL, no small accomplishment. In addition to being one of the all-time winningest coaches, I believe he has the biggest coaching tree ever in the history of the NFL, which is to say, more of his assistant coaches have become head coaches and many of them very good ones than any other head coach.
He did ultimately win a Super Bowl in February 2020. I believe that since he left Philadelphia he may have learned to value his players more in balance with his offensive system. For me, proof of his maturation in this area is observing the drafting of several highly skilled offensive players including Patrick Mahomes. Clearly, Andy has built his current offense to leverage the skill of his players. He no longer seems to put his system ahead of his players.
What does this have to do with you and me? Simply put, judgment and decision-making directly correlate to the extent to which we value people, tasks, and systems in proportion to each other. For me, I can tell you that I score tasks over people and then systems third. The good news for me is that they are not greatly out of proportion. The more they are, the less effective I would be as a leader.
I invite you to observe, as a third party might, the degree to which you value people, tasks, and systems and ask yourself the questions, What do I lead with and why? What impact might that have on my effectiveness as a leader?
I think David Foster Wallace would think these are valuable things to be thinking about.
Measuring your level of judgment and decision-making is possible and reveals much about how you lead and your effectiveness. If you would like help in this area for yourself or your leadership team, please let me know.