jennie/wiki_ghostguild
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update curriculum source files to current versions

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Jennie Robinson Faber 2026-03-09 15:51:18 +00:00
parent 136ee2442b
commit 8549cb0252
20 changed files with 467 additions and 466 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

27
content/curriculum/PS Guides/3-actionable-values-impact.md
View file

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
If you are the presenting PS for this session, prepare a **10-minute** case study from your studio covering:
- How you arrived at your current values (what process did you use? what changed through iteration?)
- One example of values guiding a real decision — especially a hard one
- One example of values guiding a real decision – especially a hard one
- Where you've seen a gap between stated values and actual practice, and what you did about it
Show the messy stuff. Participants need to see that this work is ongoing, not a one-time exercise.
@ -14,17 +14,10 @@ Show the messy stuff. Participants need to see that this work is ongoing, not a
Studios move from identifying values to making them operational. The session introduces two tools: the Why/What/How framework (turning values into concrete practices) and Layers of Effect (mapping ripple effects of decisions). A Peer Support presenter shares a case study from their own studio. Studios work through scenarios using values-first thinking and identify a decision to run through the tools with their PS this week.
:::info
If you are the presenting PS for this session, you need to prepare a **10-minute case study** from your studio covering: how you arrived at your current values, one example of values guiding a real decision (especially a hard one), and where you've seen a gap between stated values and actual practice. Show the messy stuff — participants need to see that this work is ongoing.
:::
### :eyes: **Your role during session**
- If presenting: deliver your case study. Be honest about what didn't work and what you're still figuring out.
- Observe your studio during the scenario exercise — who applies values first vs. jumping to solutions?
- If presenting: Deliver your case study. Be honest about what didn't work and what you're still figuring out.
- Observe your studio during the scenario exercise – who applies values first vs. jumping to solutions?
- Note whether studios can connect their Session 1 values to the tools, or if values are still too vague to be actionable.
@ -47,7 +40,7 @@ If you are the presenting PS for this session, you need to prepare a **10-minute
### **👆 Before the session**
- Confirm the Miro templates are set up and accessible
- Review the studio's values map — pick 1-2 values that seem ripe for the Why/What/How exercise (have a suggestion ready in case the team gets stuck)
- Review the studio's values map – pick 1-2 values that seem ripe for the Why/What/How exercise (have a suggestion ready in case the team gets stuck)
- Know which decision they identified at the end of Session 3 for the Layers of Effect exercise
@ -80,7 +73,7 @@ Prompts if they get stuck:
Push for specificity:
- "If a new member joined next month, how would they know you practice this value?"
- "'We value transparency' — what does that mean concretely? Open finances? Open conversations? Open documents?"
- "'We value transparency' – what does that mean concretely? Open finances? Open conversations? Open documents?"
**Step 3: HOW (5-7 min)**
@ -114,7 +107,7 @@ Use the decision they identified in Session 3. Walk through the three rings toge
- What standards could this establish? What shifts over years?
Use yellow stickies for opportunities/benefits and red for risks/costs. These might be connected — a benefit in one layer can create a risk in another.
Use yellow stickies for opportunities/benefits and red for risks/costs. These might be connected – a benefit in one layer can create a risk in another.
**Debrief (5 min):**
@ -144,20 +137,20 @@ If they only see positive effects:
If one person dominates the values conversation:
- "Let's hear from everyone — whose experience of this value is different?"
- "Let's hear from everyone – whose experience of this value is different?"
### **🏁 After the session**
- Note whether the studio can translate values into practices or if they're still stuck at the abstract level
- Note any gaps between stated values and emerging practices — these will come up again
- Note any gaps between stated values and emerging practices – these will come up again
- Remind them to discuss as a studio: how often should you revisit values and check your effects?
## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
- Values that are all "why" with no "what" or "how" — inspiration without practice
- A studio that can't see any negative effects of their decisions — lack of critical thinking or avoidance
- Values that are all "why" with no "what" or "how" – inspiration without practice
- A studio that can't see any negative effects of their decisions – lack of critical thinking or avoidance
- One person defining "our" values without challenge from the group
- Tools treated as a box-checking exercise rather than genuine reflection
- "We already know our values" without being able to articulate practices