Stephen Billing’s Blog

 What is my problem with shared values? It is not just the futility of corporate values exercises, it is to do with the nature of values themselves.

In the debate about shared values on this site, David Gurteen and John Tropea have both tweeted about this to the "twitterverse" which has led quite a few people to comment here.

To summarise, I have said that it is a waste of time for organisations to try and define shared values. Many of the comments have agreed, for the reason that most shared values exercises are pretty pathetic. But most of those commenting still think that you can’t do without shared values because they are what bring the organisation together, otherwise those in the organisation would have nothing in common. Some have suggested going the way of having shared objectives or shared goals instead of shared values. What are your thoughts about this?

In my previous post I pointed to Karl Weick’s critique of the word "shared," saying that it is a problem word that seems to be suggesting a process of sharing, but actually describes an outcome – that of shared values. 

However, my critique of shared values is not really so much related to problems with the word "shared," nor problems relating to the processes used in organisations when they come up with the shared values that are written on the posters.

The problem I have with shared values stems from the imaginative, intense nature of human values.

Writing values on a poster assumes that the values of a group of people can be prescribed rationally by working them out. Either the coalition of the powerful or the involvement of a wider group of people are thought to lead to the rational prescription of the values of the organisation.

However, it makes no sense to come up with a set of rationally conceived values. By definition, values are not rational.

Values come from a deep sense of what it is right to do. They have an attractive, uplifting, unrestrictive sense of the ideal. There is something compelling about the values that we hold, and yet it is entirely voluntary that we commit to these values. Value commitments arise from key intense experiences that we have and give life meaning and purpose. So there is a sense of voluntary compulsion about the values that we hold. You cannot decree a sense of purpose in life.

Values are the highest expression of our free will, and are intensely personal. They are an intense idealisation of an imaginative turn on how life would be if there were no restrictions. Efforts to work out a group or organisation’s values cut right across the imaginative and experiential nature of values. This is why I say that you cannot work out the organisation’s values through a rational process in a workshop. 

Shared values are a complete fallacy and the pursuit of them will not help your organisation one bit.

The idea of writing values on a poster assumes that if everyone in the organisation shares the same values, the organisation will be a better place to work.

These shared values are articulated on posters as a way of bringing about the future that is desired by the powerful people in the organisation.

I guess it is assumed that people will be able to get on well if they share the same values and it will create a more harmonious place to work. It is also expected that if everyone shares the same values then the organisation will perform better.

The aspirations of these values are idealisations of a future in which the tension of conflict is avoided, diversity is embraced and openness and trust are pervasive.

Here are three reasons why you should rip up your values posters and stop trying to achieve shared values in your organisation.

Reason 1

In complexity science, novelty and new patterns arise from the interaction of diverse agents. Using this as an analogy for organisations suggests that innovation and novelty arise from the interaction of diverse people. If everyone has the same values, then this will squash innovation and new ideas in your organisation.

Instead, go for people with different values and watch the new ideas arise. At the same time watch out for how people negotiate the conflict that comes with it (reason 2 below).

Reason 2

Human relating is inherently conflictual, and these shared values totally miss this important point about being human. It is how we negotiate this conflict that determines whether we are a tightly-knit, high performing organisation, whether we blow apart in a spectacular bankruptcy or whether we potter along in the same old, same old way.

Reason 3

The idealisations on the values posters ignore the messy uncertainty of taking the next step together. In any project or organisational situation, people are negotiating with each other what to do next. The future is always unknown and people are working out what to do next in ways that enable them to go on together. They cannot just do anything, because of the risk of destroying relationships and then not being able to carry on together. The idealisations on the posters distract attention from the messiness of not knowing what the outcome of what you do will be, in an unknown future.

Sources

Joas – The Genesis of Values

Stacey and Griffin – Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations

Shaw – Changing Conversations in Organizations

Values are constantly being negotiated in specific situations. They do not exist on their own, outside of human action.

An earlier post said that writing values on a poster assumes that these values have some meaning in their own right, independent of context or situation.

While values have enduring qualities, they must continually be negotiated afresh in specific situations. A value only has meaning when it is applied in a specific situation. And then it has meaning again when it is applied in another situation.

Further, values are often in conflict with each other.

For example, nurses in hospitals are continually negotiating the value of seeing a patient within a specific time frame, and other values such as seeing those with the most urgent need first.

Writing values on posters makes no sense to me. It would be more useful to discuss situations in which these conflicting values arise. For example, in a mental health facility, does keeping the house clean take priority over taking a lonely or depressed resident for an outing?

Joas – The Genesis of Values

Stacey and Griffin – Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations

It makes no sense to derive a set of values in a rational way.

In my previous post I said that writing values on a poster assumes that the values of a group of people can be prescribed rationally by working them out.

It makes no sense to come up with a set of rationally conceived values. By definition, values are not rational.

Values come from a deep sense of what it is right to do. They have an attractive, uplifting, unrestrictive sense of the ideal. There is something compelling about the values that we hold, and yet it is entirely voluntary that we commit to these values. Value commitments arise from key intense experiences that we have and give life meaning and purpose. You cannot decree a purpose in life.

Values are the highest expression of our free will, and are intensely personal.

It is a nonsense to rationally decree a set of values and expect employees to hold to them. Other than that I don’t feel strongly about it.

Sources

Joas – The Genesis of Values

Stacey and Griffin – Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations  

Most organisations have spent time and money identifying their values and putting them on posters. This is a waste of time because it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about what values are.

Most of my client organisations have statements of their values written on posters, shown in prominent positions around the office. Many have created other artefacts for displaying these values, such as stands for the desk, cards, notepads. Clearly these organisations have invested considerable money and time of their human resources and corporate communications departments in coming up with these statements.

Obviously the return on this investment is hard to measure in terms of dollars and cents, and so must be articulated in non-specific terms of "company commitment" and the like.

I think there is absolutely no return on this investment because working out the values and communicating them to people is a misguided activity in the first place.

First, it assumes that the values of a group of people can be prescribed rationally by working them out. Second, it assumes that the values exist in their own right, independent of context. It is as though these value statements have some intrinsic meaning of their own. Third, it assumes that if people follow these values the organisation will be improved.

Do you think these assumptions are valid? Can a set of values be thought out rationally and then prescribed for others? Do these values as written down have meaning of their own independently of context? Will everyone having the same values make a better organisation? 

I will be posting daily on this topic for the next three days…