Comments on: More About Why Shared Values are Futile

By: Stephen Billing Blog More About Why Shared Values are Futile | Joint Pain Relief

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:18:58 +0000

[...] Stephen Billing Blog More About Why Shared Values are Futile Posted by root 8 minutes ago (http://www.changingorganisations.com) May 17 2009 your comment about not losing your own identity highlights that we all cv comments relate to the need for genuinely shared values Discuss | Bury | News | Stephen Billing Blog More About Why Shared Values are Futile [...]

By: Steve O'Hagan

Steve O'Hagan — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:26:02 +0000

I agree with Mary. It’s a question of form over substance. Take for instance the Missionaries of Charity and their vow to give “Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor”. It takes nine years to become a fully fledged missionary of charity. One imagines that in taking a final vow, complete alignment of values between the individual and the organisation has been attained. Perhaps that is too long a wait for a commercial organisation. In many not-for-profits I suspect that the idea of shared values is not futile as the organisation attracts people who identify with the organisational values. People are looking for avenues of service. Think of Medecins sans Frontieres. Or am I confusing values with mission?

By: Diana Smith

Diana Smith — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:10:12 +0000

“Sharing values” or “shared values” has different significance outside the business world but within significant group endeavor. Organizations devoted to good works are typically organized and populated by people who share some values, even if they don’t share all values. Sometimes sharing values creates problems for others, viz. sharing of values that preclude participation in “normal” life by people of a different ethnicity, religion, demographic, age, sexual orientation, etc. When people agree to proceed with the work at hand on the basis of va set of alues they share, amazing things happen. Bad things such as the destruction on 9/11. And also: Good things, such as Rotary International’s focus on eradicating polio. Like the first post, I can see points on both sides. That leads me to conclude that exploration of “shared vales” will prove fruitful to a greater extent than it will prove conclusive.

By: Jack Vinson

Jack Vinson — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:37:34 +0000

Interesting. I agree with Mary in that most of these points are arguments against “shared values” projects within companies. I have to wonder if these projects get initiated because of some research that showed a correlation (not causation) between values and performance.

I much prefer to go along the lines of “does everyone agree to the goals of the organization?” If you don’t have that, then you don’t get anywhere. If you do, then you can move the organization forward through any amount of conflict and disagreement.

Thanks!

By: Jon Thorne

Jon Thorne — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:18:48 +0000

A good site Stephen … thanks for sharing

To add … my own personal experiences … I have discovered … during my years in collaboration …

Building a community requires shared values. But getting multiple communities to implement performance improvement in a shared organisation does not require shares values.

I have noticed that people tend to build communities by seeking people like them … one factor being shared values.

When these communities talked about the performance of a shared organisation they need to remain different.

If someone says they need have shared values … they seem to start fighting over whose shared values are better than the others.

Instead … what has worked for me … is to focus on making it easy for the different communities to engage each other in a respectful way.

This is not about shared values. It is about understanding that people have a right to be different.

I have discovered that respect is key. If people feel disrespected they tend to find reasons why ideas will not work. This can stop or slow change on a shared organisation.

I am currently doing this in the NHS at RespectExchange.org.uk

Have a great day

Kind regards

Jon

By: Mary Hall

Mary Hall — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:58 +0000

Kia ora, Stephen
It seems to me that your underlying perspective on “values” in organisations and CV Harquail’s may not be so far apart. The difference in what you are saying seems to be that CV is talking about the social and organisational cohesion (alignment) that arises from individuals having a world view that shares overlapping goals, objectives, values, and motivations.

I find myself wanting to agree with both of you:
- An organisation that is not based on some genuine commonality of purpose and world view (including “values”) is going to be pretty dysfunctional
- However, formal “Shared Values” exercises often amount to a manipulation of those with less power.

CV’s comments relate to the need for genuinely shared values, where yours focus on the futility of form without substance. Isn’t this the same thing from different directions?