I made a choice last week. I assessed my environment and chose the lessor of evils. I had an understanding with those that would be impacted. Or at least I thought I did.

In my mental calculus, the choice was the expression of my values; choosing between the options was more weighty than choosing between tacos or burritos.

The next day, as the impact of my choice became clear to others, I was met with a response that seemed louder than the impact. More than anything, I was surprised at both the volume of the response and its expression. What I hadn’t calculated was that my choice might butt up against someone else’s values. What followed was hours of internal dialogue: What did expressing my values cost me? Were they really that important to me? Could I have expressed my values in a different way? Was this really and expression of my values or something benign?

I’m learning that choices are often not between values-or-no-values, but the expression of differing values or the same value expressed in a different way.

I can choose salad because I value healthy eating and/or I can choose a fried chicken sandwich from the value menu because I value saving money. They’re not tested until I choose, even if they are not mutually exclusive.

This testing forced me to get clarity on what I believed and why. It forced me to think about the other relationships in which I was engaged: did she know my values? Did she honor my values? Does she have the same value? Will she challenge me again in the future when the stakes are higher?

This is the essence of values, isn’t it? What is something ‘worth’ to me? What is it worth for me to be right? What is it worth for me to face this issue again? Is it worth my job? Is it worth an awkward conversation? Values don’t become values until they cost something.