Comments on: Three Reasons Not to Aim For Shared Values

By: Three reasons not to aim for shared values | Fit Forum

Three reasons not to aim for shared values | Fit Forum — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:30 +0000

[...] originally tweeted this post of Stephen Billing’s Three reasons not to aim for shared values a little whil… carry on reading. Share and [...]

By: Anne Hugo

Anne Hugo — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:08:11 +0000

‘New Scientist’ 06 May 2009 had an article — Embrace your inner grouch — explaining research on creativity within organisations: “people who were dissatisfied and willing to pipe up were found to be the most creative (Academy of Management Journal, vol 44, p 682) … more at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227072.500-embrace-your-inner-grouch.html

By: Sam Marshall

Sam Marshall — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:55:56 +0000

Thanks for a thought-provoking post. There are many potential sources of conflict in an organisation – values, different information, different experiences, different agendas etc. Values are such a deep-seated thing that conflict arising from value differences can represent quite a significant hurdle.
I agree that overcoming this hurdle can stimulate creativity if done well. However, I don’t think its desirable in all aspects of operation. Innovation is great in areas like R&D or foreseeing Risk (as in Wisdom of Crowds). It and be fruitless and costly when efficient or speedy execution is what matters most.

By: Kees van der Zanden

Kees van der Zanden — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:14:02 +0000

Dear Stephen,
David Gurteen attracted my attention to your blog, thank to you and David.
1. If innovation is so important in the organisations you refer to, wouldn’t innovativeness (or something like openness to new ideas) be one of the shared values that you would really like to value in such organisations?
2. My experience with ’shared’ values is that provide useful occasions for reflexion and discussion about the values. Nice examples I experienced are workshop sessions of about an hour during which people exchange on concrete situations in which applying a specific value is really challenging, or not wise.
An alternative is to reflect on concrete organisational experiences which show the meaning of a concrete shared value.
- concluding: I do believe it is useful in any organisation to reflect and exchange once and a while on its core values, even if it is to reveal that some values should not be equally important to everyone within the business.

By: Byron Woodson

Byron Woodson — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:47:53 +0000

In the book Wisdom of the Crowds, James Surowiecki talked about how high performing groups all came to the table with a smattering of different backgrounds and perspectives. Only when a relatively strong leader was able to balance and integrate the input of a diverse group was some kind of functional or accurate ‘concensus’ made. He found that most homogenous groups (i.e. those with shared values and backgrounds) most likely fall into group-think and do errant things.

Following Stephen’s lead, the ‘diversity’ of which one should aim is not racial or gender-based, but a different way of perceiving and valuing the world . . . A young and an old physicist does not diversity make.

Perhaps a rubric would be diverse values going in, integration, shared values going out. This would allow for both the diversity of values to be addressed and integrated.

By: Thabo

Thabo — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:06:24 +0000

Weick in Sensemaking in Organizations makes the point that shared values, understanding, etc are unnecessary.
Teams can work for shared experience, which creates their commnality, identity.
Shared values are not necessary for a culture to develop

By: Three reasons not to aim for shared values : knowledge management

Three reasons not to aim for shared values : knowledge management — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:13:34 +0000

[...] originally tweeted this post of Stephen Billing’s Three reasons not to aim for shared values a little while back. Stephen tells me that it resulted in a large number of people visiting his [...]

By: CV Harquail

CV Harquail — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:07:56 +0000

Stephen,
I’m not quite sure what it is about shared values that you are against (in this post)… Is it
- having any sharing at all?
- the idea that “shared values” are often but not always imposed by top mgmt?
- the idea that “words on the wall” are not actually ’shared’ values?
- the belief that sharing values means subordinating one’s personal self? You’ve got a lot going on here… worth teasing out.

Shared values, as I see them, (just as a start) are
(1) an integral, critical,
(2) ground-up, cohering element in an organization.
(3) Every organization has shared values of some kind — otherwise there would be no grounds for collective action.
(4) Values that are actually shared are not always the same as those denoted by mgmt as “shared values”.
(5) Sharing some values with your co-members doesn’t need to preclude being authentic and retaining your own values.
How do these claims about values fit with what you want to challenge?

By: informal coalitions

informal coalitions — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:02:06 +0000

Shared Values – Hit or myth?…

A post in Stephen Billing’s blog, entitled Three Reasons Not To Aim For Shared Values, has sparked an interesting discussion on the credibility of establishing “Shared Values” within an organization, and on the worth of striving to do so. The……

By: Ian Graham

Ian Graham — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:43:13 +0000

Perhaps this will help clarify. My humble take is that an organization can be both inclusive and diverse. Inclusion should in fact foster diversity because differences are welcome and encouraged. The natural outcome of a truly inclusive organization will be diversity.

The starting point for diversity is how we are different.

The starting point for inclusion is more holistic and welcoming.