Courtney Bither

An Interview with Howard Gardner

Introduction

In this interview with Elena Molinari, correspondent for the Italian national newspaper Avvenire, Howard Gardner discusses The Good Project’s history and resources. Read the interview in English below, and find the Italian version by clicking here.


Over the years, have you had regular feedback about how the Good Project resources and toolkits are used and by whom? In what context (work, school, community) are they mostly applied? 

ANSWER:  Our materials are used primarily in schools, especially mioddle school and  high school.  Individual teachers or groups of teachers use them with their students=--sometimes as parrt of a regular class, sometimes as an extra activity, sometimes when a crisis of some sort arises. (As you have seen on thegoodproject.org, we now have a value sort, sample dilemmas, and a fully worked out curriculum which is being tested in various schools.

But the materials have also been used in other settings, ranging from law school to news to government service. and they have drawn on all sorts of data, including surveys of several thousand individuals from seven countries.

What are the results of the applications of the toolkits? Are you aware of any meaningful impact they have had in workplaces or schools? Could you please mention some cases?

ANSWER:  It is very difficult to document that people have changed as  a result of our interventions per se. We cannot carry out controlled studies comparing classes with and without curriculum, nor can we follow individuals for years to see if they become 'good workers'

But the fact that we have more interest now than ever before; that individuals keep using the materials (and sometimes modifying them); and that we have  suggestive observations (e.g.  that individuals in one of our studies seem more likely to read the newspapers and to think about the issues of the day) encourage us to keep  working. and  keep improving our materials.    

The Good Project toolkits don’t seem to privilege any values, or even ethical theories, over others. Yet, the Project promotes “excellence, engagement and ethics.” Why were those values chosen?

ANSWER:  The Three "E' came out of our ten years study of workers in nine different professions in the United States,  and they have proved useful in other countries.   

As for ethics, you are right-- we have our own ethical preferences but we dont emphasize one ethical perspective over others.   Instead, we pose dilemmas for individuals and help them to define the dilemmas,  discuss and debate the dillemas, make  a decision, and then reflect on the decision.   This approach can span a range of ethical perspectives.

What makes a “Good Worker” in today’s Western societies? 

ANSWER:  The challenges in todays' societies are multiple.  Many jobs are being replaced by automation;  many workers depend on a 'gig economy; people cant expect to change jobs or even careers  multiple times, old professions are being disrupted, new ones are emerging.   Yet the three Es-- doing a good job,  caring about what you do, and trying to do the right thing  are constants-- they dont' change.  And so the premium on carrying out good work is as great as it has ever been.  You mention Western societies but we are actually working on these ideas with workers in Singapore, so they may have gloibal value. 

Why not donate a kidney to a stranger?

by Courtney Bither

On June 1, 2021 I donated a kidney to a stranger. Most people want to know, immediately, “Why? Why donate a kidney to a stranger?”

 The screening process for kidney donation is thorough, and there are several psychological and social screenings for non-directed (or altruistic) donors. Throughout the process, and in speaking to others about my decision, I’ve come to realize that donating a kidney, while certainly a sacrifice and a very big decision, always felt within the realm of possibility for me.

In my experience, most people who aren’t confronted with organ donation have not spent much time thinking about it. I certainly did not consider myself a candidate for organ donation until a history professor of mine shared with our class that he would be donating a kidney and asked if we had any questions about the process. This conversation prompted me to think more about organ donation: the risks, the benefits, the requirements. And I decided to submit myself as a candidate not long after.  

We return to the why: Why donate a kidney to a stranger? The answer is simple: because I wanted to. Because it made sense to me. I decided if I made it through all of the screening, I would be at such little risk for the surgery, and able to contribute so much to someone. So why not?

“Why not?” gave me much more pause than, “why?” Why not give a kidney to a stranger? Because I cannot know anything about the intended recipient, and I cannot choose to whom my kidney is donated. My kidney could go to a child, or a loving parent, or a justice-seeking teacher. Or my kidney could go to a white supremacist—a person’s whose actions I find not only questionable, but evil—a detriment to the wellbeing of others. And my kidney would extend that person’s life. 

So how, nonetheless, did I choose to go through with it?

I looked at my options: donate, or not. And I talked through my reasoning with close friends and family—people who understand me and my values, who could help me talk through what felt right for me. Talking out my concerns with each option clarified for me what I was most concerned with: doing good and doing no harm.

I realized, in self-reflection, that I would rather take a chance on doing good, even if it meant harm might result from my decision. It’s uncomfortable to think about, but it’s important to consider. In general, I tend to think that those in need should be given priority over those might take advantage of systems for those in need. I’d rather take a chance on a “good” person receiving my kidney than a bad one. And, beyond this, I can only do what is within my control—the decision to donate is within my control, not the past or future decisions my recipient makes.

Understanding my values here—to do good, to prevent harm, to fulfill what I believe my moral and social obligations are—helped me decide, with confidence, to proceed with kidney donation.

Understanding the gravity of the situation for those waiting for a kidney also helped me decide to donate my kidney: 12 people die every day waiting for a kidney transplant. In 2020 in the U.S., about 100,000 people were waiting for a kidney transplant, and only 22,817 people in the U.S. received one. Not everyone can or should donate a kidney. However, considering the manifold aspects of the issue, more people can and perhaps should think about kidney donation—and other “big solutions”—and where and how they fit in the process.

 I am very fortunate to be in a situation where I can donate a kidney: I have very supportive colleagues at work who encouraged me throughout the process; I have enough paid time off for my recovery so I won’t have to struggle financially; I live with my partner and two very supportive roommates who help with recovery while I cannot drive or make food. And for me, kidney donation never felt impossible. But for some people, it does. And that’s alright—even good. Donating one kidney involves much more than one person—each person involved in my recovery made this donation possible. Each “big decision” and “big solution” requires a team—yes, only I donated a kidney, but I couldn’t have done it alone. And what’s more, it’s something that felt right for me, with my values, it was something I wanted to do.

I must admit, at times I feel uncomfortable with the shock I hear from people questioning my choice to donate a kidney. I know people mean well—and I don’t deny, donating a kidney to a stranger is an unusual thing to do—but because donating a kidney was something I wanted to do, I don’t always understand the shock. My favorite responses have come from folks who tell me that they have family on dialysis, so they understand the gravity of the situation, or from those who appreciate that this sort of decision is brave—it certainly required courage. But it isn’t an impossibility—it was a choice I made, and I made it happily.

Everyone can have a role in making the world a better place—in doing good work—and, in my opinion, it’s a good thing that people have different roles in the process. Rather than focus on how impractical another’s role would be for you, perhaps it would be more helpful to reflect on what it is you want to do and what it is that you can do.

You might start by asking yourself, “What do I want to do to make the world a better place? What makes sense to me? And what kind of team or community do I need with me to take action?”

Perhaps will you feel inspired to look into kidney donation (link here), or maybe you’ll sign up to donate blood (link here). Or, maybe you will challenge yourself and a friend to work with an organization like Food for Free (link) or Meals on Wheels (link), working to ensure everyone has access to adequate food in your community.  

There are many ways to do good work—to work for a kinder, more equitable world. Find what makes sense to you, what you want to do, and start there.   


  • Not sure what you value or how to make a decision? In my own life, I have found both the Value Sort (link) and the 5 Ds of Good Work (link) useful in my own discernment process (including in my choice to donate a kidney). Be sure to check them out.

  • Would you like to learn more about kidney donation? I recommend this video and article (link here) from Dylan Matthews at Vox.

New Resource! The complete Civics Blog Series

Good Citizenship: Concluding Note

 In this blog series, The Good Project team has sought to illuminate the relationship between good work and good citizenship.

  • What is Good Citizenship? explains that we have extended the 3 Es of Good Work—excellence, ethics and engagement—to elucidate the concepts of “good citizenship.”

  • Good Person, Good Worker, Good Citizen investigates the distinctions between these various roles, drawing on two key Good Project concepts: neighborly morality and ethics of roles.

  •  5Ds, 3Es and One Good Citizen applies the five “Ds” of Dilemmas (Define, Discuss, Debate, Decide, and Debrief) to analyze a difficult decision faced by a social entrepreneur. We consider her choices and reflect upon what we can surmise about both good work and good citizenship.

  •  Good Citizenship Through Good Work proposes that these two concepts may in fact coexist. Personal reflection is used to unpack ways in which good citizenship might be achieved through good work.

  •  The Hope of Global Citizenship traces some of the many meanings of citizenship; it describes the increasing importance of a newly developed concept, global citizenship.

 We are delighted to share the series in full, in PDF form. You can access the series by clicking the button below:

Good Citizenship: A Series - Part 3

5 Ds, 3 Es and One Good Citizen

by The Good Project Team

Given recent events in the United States—increasing political division, yawning inequality between the country’s richest and poorest inhabitants, and well-documented violence directed towards people of color—the need for “good citizens'' is compelling. And that’s just within our borders. We need to attend as well to worldwide issues such as climate change and the current COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone is now a global citizen as well.

Our overarching goal at The Good Project is to help foster moral and ethical reflection in students and adults. One promising means of doing so is to practice reflecting on real-life dilemmas as they are encountered. In our conception, such reflection optimally draws on “Five Ds”:

  • Defining the dilemma one is faced with;

  • Discussing the dilemma with others;

  • Debating the pros and cons of various courses of action;

  • Deciding on an action (or deciding not to act); and

  • Debriefing the dilemma by reflecting on what went right, wrong, or what might be done better next time one encounters a similar situation.

Let us take each of these in turn.

Defining the Dilemma

In our work on dilemmas, we speak about times when people are not sure about the “right course of action” or feel torn between conflicting responsibilities. To date, we’ve compiled fifty dilemmas in our online dilemmas database; these can be drawn on in discussions on all sorts of topics, across the range of ages, demographies, and fields of endeavor.

As just one example, let’s use our dilemma “Divided Loyalties.”

 Sara is the executive director of a national nonprofit that represents the concerns of America’s independent workforce, including freelancers, consultants, part-timers, and the self-employed. Sara’s grandfather was vice president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and although she never met her grandfather, she has been very much influenced by his work as a union organizer.

Soon after being recognized as one of a group of outstanding social entrepreneurs, Sara was invited to the World Economic Forum (WEF), a meeting of leaders of governments and corporations from around the world. Because the WEF gathers so many powerful individuals together, there are often protests of one form or another, and Sara would have been forced to cross a picket line in order to attend the WEF. In this case, she felt torn between a loyalty to her roots in the labor movement and a responsibility to her role as a noted social entrepreneur.

Clearly Sara feels a dilemma. One way to clarify that dilemma is to say that she is torn between her sense of neighborlly morality and the ethics of her role. Neighborly morality refers the ways in which individual treats those in their immediate social circles; it includes behaviors such as honesty, kindness, caring, attentiveness, and other prosocial behaviors. In contrast, ethics of roles refers to the standards, norms, and regulations expected of those acting in a professional capacity (including students); one might think of the Hippocratic Oath for those in the medical field or the ethics expected of a journalist, a lawyer, a teacher, an auditor..

 In Sara’s case, she is being asked to adhere to the ethics of her role as a social entrepreneur—to advance the causes that she espouses in a responsible way. On the other hand, feelings of neighborly morality might call for her to show respect to those on the picket line—especially given her strong feelings of familial loyalty.

Discussing and Debating the Dilemma

 How should Sara decide what to do? What would it mean for her to act as a good citizen in this situation? In turning to discussing and debating the dilemma, we often suggest that individuals turn to respected others—mentors—in order to ask for their advice. Importantly, a mentor might not always be a single person to whom one looks up; rather, that mentoring role might be assumed by a fictional character, or individuals might pull different lessons from several individuals, a process we’ve referred to as “frag-mentoring.” At The Good Project, we also speak of the importance of “anti-mentors”—looking to examples of who we don’t want to be in a situation. Thus, in this situation, Sara might ask mentors in her life what they would do in a similar situation in order to be respectful to both family and work responsibilities, or, instead, what they did if they ever encountered a similar experience. (And if the mentors were not available, she might try in her imagination to recreate the advice that they might have given.)

In debating the possible courses of action, Sara should also refer to the Rings of Responsibility—whom will each course of action serve? To whom will she be acting responsibly if she crosses the picket line? What about if she elects to skip the WEF meeting altogether? Which action allows her to better serve her communities in an ethical, engaged, and excellent manner? For example, Sara might consider that:

  • By attending, she might help her national nonprofit; she also could be furthering the needs of the communities that her nonprofit serves; she would be upholding her ethics of as a social entrepreneur; and she would be fulfilling a responsibility to wider society by serving an underrepresented workforce.

  • By not attending, she might serve her image of herself as a supporter of workers as she honors the picket line; she could be serving her family by upholding her grandfather’s union legacy; or she might be serving her community (and the broader society) if she is publicly displays her support of others in the labor movement.

In wrestling with this dilemma, Sara would also need to consider her own values and how they might affect her decision regarding this dilemma. Perhaps she is already aware of her own values; or perhaps she might conduct an inventory, by taking a survey such as The Good Project’s Value Sort. Which course of action would be more aligned with Sara’s own values? We often speak about alignment as something that occurs when various groups or parties want the same thing or are working towards a common goal; but this desired balance can also occur within an individual when someone’s thoughts, actions, and values align with one another.

 Deciding on a Course of Action

Which course of action should Sara take? As we’ve described it, a “good citizen” is someone who acts in accordance with all three “Es” —specifically taking into account the community or communities to which that person belongs. Again, she might consider:

  • Ethics: Sara has acted ethically if she makes a decision in light of her responsibilities to her several communities (to her organization, to the unions, to the ideals represented by the freedom to demonstrate), and if she acts in a manner that she believes will ultimately do the most good.  

  • Excellence: Sara knows the norms and rules of her various communities well and in fact, her desire to adhere to the norms of one of those communities (i.e., not to cross a picket line) was what brought about her quandary. She recognizes that if she does an excellent job at the event, the potential impact she might have will expand her connections within the political community.

  • Engagement: Sara has been deeply engaged in her work. Because this event brought together multiple communities of which she considered herself a part, the issues were especially relevant. She also is engaged with her family and does not take that affiliation lightly.

 Debriefing

When posing such a dilemma to students, we typically do not reveal an answer—it’s the process of applying the 5 Ds that is crucial.

However, here we can reveal that Sara elected to cross the picket line. She concluded that the harm her action might cause would ultimately be outweighed by the good she might be able to achieve by attending the event, making contacts, speaking on behalf of her beliefs about labor, and ultimately, furthering her cause. She acted in accordance with what she felt might, eventually, do the most good. In some ways, she chose long term over short term gain. Upon reflection, Sara was not fully at peace with her decision (she said she could never feel fully at ease crossing a picket line), but she felt that she made the best choice she could have at the time.

As mentioned above, there may at times be overlap between “good work” and “good citizenship.” In this particular case, Sara understands herself to be responsible to multiple communities and does her best to take these communities into account in her decision-making. The good work of a nonprofit director requires Sara to be a good citizen.

 Debriefing also involves a consideration of longer term consequences. Did Sara’s decision cause any family estrangement? What did she accomplish at the event, and were these accomplishments worth crossing the picket line? Would she make a different decision in the future, and why? These are the types of questions to consider in our efforts to foster good work and good citizenship.

Good Citizenship: A Series - Part 1

An Introduction: What is “Good Citizenship”?

By The Good Project Team

 The problems facing the world today are ample and, in a globalized and interconnected planet, are more likely to affect all nations and all persons. The international community recently witnessed the degree to which a previously unknown pathogen, COVID-19, could within weeks disrupt daily life for billions of people. Climate change poses an urgent threat for the survival of human beings as well as the numerous species with which we share the earth. Social disparities along racial and ethnic lines persist and are in some cases widening.

It is imperative for people (especially those with the time and resources to do so) to address these issues and to do so collaboratively. When we consider people coming together in pursuit of a goal that will benefit the common good, the terms “civic” and “citizenship” often come to mind.

How do those of us on The Good Project define “good citizenship”? What are the ways of thinking that will encourage citizens to contribute to a better world?

Launched in the middle 1990s, The Good Project initially investigated how individuals were carrying out their work under conditions of rapid technological change and strong market forces, which have only accelerated in the succeeding quarter century. Our research team conducted in-depth interviews about work with individuals drawn from a a range of domains—including law, medicine, journalism, and education. We asked our informants to consider their formative influences, beliefs, values, supports, obstacles, responsibilities, ethical standards, and allied issues. As a result of this extensive research, our “good work” framework emerged. As we now conceptualize it, good work is characterized by“3 Es”: it is high quality (Excellent), concerned with consequences (Ethical), and meaningful (Engaging).

The bulk of our research has focused on people’s professional lives. But the role of worker is obviously not the only role that individuals occupy in their multifaceted lives—nor is work the only sphere in which we interact with and influence others. One may, for example, think of oneself as a “mom,” a “daughter,” and a “friend,” and act differently depending on which role is dominant in a particular moment.

“Citizen” is yet another lens through which we might view ourselves. And so we have recently pondered: Can we conceptualize “citizenship” in ways that will encourage people to do “good” for the benefit of all?

What is a “good citizen”?

First and foremost, when referring to citizenship, we do not simply mean legal citizenship in a particular nation or country. Instead, in our formulation, a citizen is an inhabitant of a place or community, whether or not that comes with legal recognition. Although it is undoubtedly more difficult without legal citizenship, we believe everyone has a right and a responsibility to participate in civic life.

Accordingly, at The Good Project, we extend our conception of the 3Es of ethics, excellence, and engagement to describe and evaluate the meaning of “good citizenship.” With that schema in mind, good citizens are individuals who strive to do the right thing, not principally for their own self interest but for their broader communities and for society (ethics); know the rules, regulations, and norms of their particular communities and contexts, as well as conditions when it is proper or even necessary to defy them (excellence); and take an interest and find meaning in working for the betterment of community and society (engagement). As examples familiar to readers, we think of Cesar Chavez, Dr. Martin Luther King, or Malala Yousafzai; and while most of us cannot presume to accomplish what these heroic figures have accomplished, these exemplary citizens nonetheless serve as inspiration.

This way the 3 Es of good citizenship manifest themselves and resonate with one another will differ depending on one’s values, environmental circumstances, and upbringing. For some individuals, voting regularly may be sufficient political action to qualify as “doing the right thing.” For others, weekly protests calling for large-scale social change might be necessary in order to feel one has done enough. The issues that are salient to particular individuals will also vary.

At The Good Project we have gathered evidence in support of our claim that “good citizens” are ethical, engaged, and excellent. In our analysis, they are also able to critically consider the rings of responsibility; in so doing, their ultimate actions should be beneficial not only to themselves, but also to those in their various communities. It follows, then, that individuals would be acting in accordance with the principles of “good citizenship” if:

  • When encountering dilemmas, individuals took the time to critically think about how they define the various communities and tried to act, or not act, in accordance with what they felt would do the most good for their communities rather primarily than for themselves (ethics).

  • Individuals took the time to know the norms, rules, and/or laws of their various communities (excellence).

  • Individuals displayed an interest in events and issues relevant to their various communities (engagement).

In the accompanying set of blogs, we explore good citizenship and good work through a variety of approaches and perspectives. Featured are:

  • A discussion of the distinctions between a good person, a good worker and a good citizen

  • The application of the Good Work “5 Ds” framework to unpack a dilemma

  • A discussion of how good citizenship can be achieved through good work

  • A consideration of the meaning and the achievement of global citizenship.