Silent
Silent provides the tools for seekers to recognize their path and enables self-reliance for spiritual and magickal growth.
Seekers gain insight from his work and find their inner calm from his ability to listen and help others reflect.
Shared Values and Common Ground
Silent • October 17, 2024
A Vision for Sharing Diverse Views
In every corner of life, be it business, community, or personal relationships, we find ourselves navigating between two powerful concepts—shared values and common ground.
These terms often float into conversation, but each carries a weight and depth that profoundly influences the structure of leadership, decision-making, and our ethical compass. Let us explore how they shape our world and how leaders can harness both for a future rooted in integrity and mutual respect.
Shared Values are the ethical, moral, and philosophical principles that form the bedrock of a community or organization. These values extend beyond superficial agreements and resonate deeply, forming the core beliefs that shape the group's decisions, actions, and collective spirit.
For a leader, shared values are not negotiable or temporary.
They represent a long-standing commitment to integrity, accountability, sustainability, and respect. Consider a company such as Patagonia, built on a foundation of environmental stewardship. Its shared values of sustainability inform every aspect of its operations, from the materials it uses to its supply chain processes. These values are woven into the organization's soul, influencing its employees and customers who align with those beliefs.
A powerful sense of trust and loyalty results when values like these are deeply embedded.
In the magickal and spiritual traditions, shared values manifest as the guiding principles that direct individual practice and communal rites and rituals. Within ancestor veneration rituals like kispum, shared values are those threads that connect the living to the dead, maintaining a relationship with the departed in both honor and humility. These sacred bonds remind us that shared values transcend even the boundaries of life and death.
Common Ground—in contrast, is practical, immediate, and often transactional. It refers to areas where people or organizations can agree, even when they diverge significantly on core beliefs. Common ground enables collaboration for short-term goals, allowing parties with different values to come together for a specific purpose, such as a particular ritual.
One example of common ground across faith practices is the different practices and philosophies of reverence and rituals related to death, especially ancestor veneration.
Despite differences in beliefs, many traditions recognize the importance of honoring those who have passed.
For instance, Mesopotamian kispum rituals involve honoring the deceased through offerings, such as water libations, which ensure the dead are nourished and remembered in the afterlife. Similarly, in many Eastern traditions, rituals like the Japanese Obon festival or Chinese ancestor worship also involve offerings of food, water, and prayers to maintain a connection with ancestors.
Even in Abrahamic traditions, which focus more on the afterlife and resurrection, practices like Yahrzeit (Jewish remembrance) or All Souls’ Day (Christian remembrance) emphasize honoring the dead through candles, prayers, and remembrance.
These rituals illustrate a shared human concern: the desire to maintain bonds with loved ones beyond death.
Regardless of theology, this veneration across cultures emphasizes the continuity of love, remembrance, and the spiritual connection between the living and the deceased. This shows how death can become a sacred and unifying thread, bridging faiths that often seem at odds on other issues.
Many faith groups celebrate the solstice and equinox.
Different faiths celebrate the earth’s journey around the sun and the changing seasons. We come together with shared joy and celebration.
In personal relationships, common ground may allow us to bridge gaps with those who see the world differently. We don’t need to agree on everything, but by identifying shared goals, we find ways to work together.
Common ground is temporary—it serves the moment's need and often dissolves once that purpose is fulfilled.
Business Examples of Shared Values and Common Ground
Take Starbucks, for instance, where the company’s commitment to corporate social responsibility illustrates shared values. Starbucks promotes ethical sourcing, environmental stewardship, and community engagement.
These values create a lasting bond between the company and stakeholders, driving long-term relationships and loyalty. When employees and customers feel aligned with a larger mission, shared values build resilience and trust.
Compare this to Microsoft and Sony's cloud gaming partnership—a clear example of common ground. Their collaboration wasn’t about shared values but leveraging technology to achieve a common goal. The partnership may end when the goal is reached, but both parties would have gained from the temporary alignment.
Comparing Shared Values and Common Ground
The key difference between shared values and common ground is their depth and longevity. Shared values shape the very identity of a group or individual, influencing long-term behaviors and decisions. They are resilient and enduring, guiding through crises and change. Common ground, on the other hand, is about practical, surface-level agreements. It addresses immediate needs but often needs more staying power than shared values.
This comparison becomes critical when a leader makes decisions that impact an organization's long-term ethical direction. Leaders who prioritize shared values create cultures of sustainability and integrity where decisions reflect deeply held beliefs. Leaders who rely only on standard ground may achieve short-term success, but they risk instability once the shared objective is met.
Ethical Leadership in Everyday Contexts
In the realm of ethics, shared values are the compass that guides a company or individual’s actions toward the greater good. A business built on shared values, like Google's commitment to innovation and transparency, tends to operate with integrity because its actions are aligned with a moral framework. These values act as a moral compass, guiding decisions beyond compliance and focusing on what suits employees, customers, and society.
Conversely, while sound, common ground does not always ensure ethical behavior. Two parties can collaborate on a shared objective while significantly ignoring more enormous ethical implications if their long-term values diverge. This is why partnerships in industries with weak ethical standards can lead to exploitation—common ground without shared values is often fraught with moral pitfalls.
What Must Leaders Do?
Leaders must strive to understand the balance between these forces. To create lasting, ethical success, they must prioritize shared values while leveraging common ground where necessary. Here are actions leaders should take:
Foster Shared Values—Leaders must clearly define and communicate their organization's core values. These values should be embedded in every decision and relationship, creating a solid ethical foundation.
Leverage Common Ground—It is essential to Identify common ground in negotiations or short-term collaborations. However, leaders must ensure these agreements do not compromise the organization’s ethical standards.
Maintain Transparency—Align short-term interests with long-term values. By doing so, leaders can build trust and ensure that the pursuit of common goals remains aligned with more profound, shared principles.
Ultimately, shared values sustain us. They endure through time beyond immediate gains, offering a legacy built on respect, trust, and integrity. Common ground is valuable, but shared values are the roots that nourish the forest.
Recap
In leadership and life, shared values are the roots, grounding us in integrity and trust. Common ground allows us to navigate differences and collaborate, but the deeper alignment with core values sustains lasting relationships.
May your journey forward be one of wisdom and mutual respect.
Onward.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A psilocybin drug is nearing FDA review, and the people building it say they do not yet know how much of the healing comes from the experience itself.
Four weeks before Samhain, a recent study of grief technology and a 4,000-year-old household ritual ask the same question: where does love go when its person has died?
A new study of American religious life shows belief eroding even inside the tradition best known for keeping its people — and asks what's actually left once certainty goes. On September 22nd, Pew Research Center published one of the more quietly startling religion studies of the year, and it isn't about a fringe group or a sect nobody expected to hold together. It's about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — a faith practically famous for how thoroughly it keeps its own. In 2007, seven in ten Americans raised Mormon still identified as Mormon in adulthood. By 2023–24, that number had fallen to fifty-four percent. Nearly a third of those raised in the faith now describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular" — double the share sixteen years earlier. Even among those who stayed, certainty thinned: belief in God "without doubt" dropped from ninety percent to seventy-six, daily prayer from eighty-two to seventy-three. I want to handle this data carefully. It's easy to hear "church retention falls" as bad news for the faithful, or quiet vindication for everyone else. Both readings miss the point. LDS retention, even diminished, still outperforms most American denominations. This isn't a story about one institution losing its grip. It's a story about certainty tested under close to the best conditions available to it — strong community, generational continuity, real doctrinal coherence — and still, gradually, coming apart at the seams. If it can happen there, the architecture holding up anyone's inherited certainty is less permanent than it looks from inside it. What the Study Can't Measure Pew can count who still checks a box on a survey. It can't tell you what it's like to be the one doing the leaving — or the one staying while something you used to feel without effort quietly stops being available to you. That's a different kind of data, and it's the kind spiritual direction actually works with. I've sat across from people in exactly that middle distance: still going through the motions, still loving their community, privately unsure whether anyone is listening. It's one of the loneliest positions a person can occupy, because it often can't be spoken aloud inside the very community that would otherwise hold you. You're not ready to call yourself a leaver. You can't quite call yourself a believer without qualifying it into something smaller. Most traditions have no name for that middle room, so people sit in it alone, assuming they're the only one there. They rarely are. The Pew numbers say so. The Gate You Can't Skip There's an old Sumerian story about Inanna, Queen of Heaven, who descends into the underworld to see her sister Ereshkigal. At each of seven gates, the gatekeeper takes something from her — her crown, her jewelry, her royal robes — until she arrives at the bottom stripped of every marker that told anyone, including herself, who she was. Only then does she meet what's actually down there. The myth doesn't treat this as tragedy. It treats it as the price of admission to a truth the ornaments were never built to survive. Deconstruction, in the modern sense, usually doesn't announce itself as myth. It shows up as a nagging doubt during a hymn, a question you stop asking out loud, a certainty that used to arrive automatically and now has to be manufactured. But it follows the same shape as Inanna's descent: something is removed at every threshold, and there's no route past the gate that lets you keep all your jewelry. The theology goes first, sometimes. Then the community. Then, for some, the habit of feeling addressed by anything larger than themselves. I'm not going to rush in here and repair anyone's faith, and I'd be suspicious of anything that claimed it could. Some absences aren't problems waiting on a solution. The silence where God used to answer immediately isn't necessarily a malfunction — it may be the actual terrain, and the task is learning to stand in it rather than paper over it with a faster answer. The Question Worth Sitting With So here's what I'd actually ask, if you were sitting across from me instead of reading this: if the certainty you were handed finished eroding completely — not into a different, tidier belief, not into an argument you could win, but into open silence — could you survive being someone who simply doesn't know? Not forever. Just for now, while it's true. I won't answer that for you. I don't think it can be answered from outside the room it happens in. A Practice for the Middle Room If you recognize yourself here — still present, quietly uncertain — try this before the week is out. Write one sentence naming exactly what you used to believe without effort. Then write, honestly, whether that sentence is still true for you, true with an asterisk, or no longer true at all. Don't fix it. Don't defend it to an imagined critic. Just let it sit there, accurate, on the page. That's the whole practice. It won't resolve anything tonight. It will at least stop costing you the extra work of pretending, even to yourself, that nothing has moved. Closing Reflection Nearly a third of a generation raised inside one of America's most cohesive faiths now names no faith at all. Whatever tradition raised you, ask honestly: which of your certainties are still yours, and which have you simply kept saying out of habit? Sit with the answer before you try to fix it.