On 'Corporate Values'

"Conventional thinking will fail, no matter how well conceived and executed."

Kees Dorst

I think there are two categories of 'Corporate Values' statements that can be helpful:

1. The organisation recognises and acknowledges the unique and differentiating characteristics of its current system. These characteristics are distilled and 'codified' as 'Our Values'. These founding 'Values' play the role of arbitrator and guide when difficult trade offs need to made as the organisation chooses a growth path. There is a conscious decision to preserve and maintain these founding characteristics as the organisation evolves, and to continue to prioritise and nurture these 'enablers of our differentiation'.

2. The organisation recognises and acknowledges that its current system can no longer support deliberate, and sustainable growth looking forward; ('what got us here won't get us there'). So, there is a conscious decision to challenge and stretch away from the past by defining and 'codifying' a new system ('Our new Values') that - with commitment - might enable something different over time. The new 'Values' are deliberately ambitious and intentional.

However.

The typical middle ground between these two positions are the generic, vague, interchangeable, 'replace the Company name and insert any other' lists of safe soundbites. These platitudes usually include 'innovation', 'trust', 'inclusive', 'people oriented', 'safe', 'bold', (ironic) 'open', 'connected', 'dynamic', 'future looking' etc. etc. etc.

A 'smell test' on these lists is to consider the opposite of the stated 'Value' descriptor to check if the 'Value' has any real meaning. For example, based on the examples above, would an organisation ever claim to be 'stuck', 'untrustworthy', 'exclusionary', 'process oriented', 'unsafe', 'defensive', 'closed', 'disconnected', 'static', backward looking'? 

So the opposites are no more than 'tick box' table stakes.


 

I work as a thinking partner and advisor with mid sized, value oriented companies going through significant change. I help you to build new capability and mindsets through shifting your approach to organisational development.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please let me know your thoughts on this...

Popular posts from this blog

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'...

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'. The technology platforms are secondary. They work best when: They help to simplify or speed up what people have always done while working; (research / answer questions / share / store) They enable people to work in new ways that they have learned are more efficient and effective; (cooperatively / 'out loud' / across different teams) A 'digital mindset' for businesses could include these ideas: Constant change is inescapable - so it's curiosity and adaptability that create value in work teams New possibilities and solutions come from connecting many sources of information People can take responsibility for solving work problems Failing fast is helpful Creating wide and diverse networks of expertise and experience is crucial Customer ('end user') centricity keeps everyone better aligned Silos don't help Flatter, less hierarchical teams move ideas and solutions
Read more

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

“In a world of separation and domination, systems thinking is subversive.” Dr Elizabeth Sawin The key to improving the work of organisations - and the contributions of the people in them - is to look at them as connected 'systems'. (Put another way, because improving the performance of individual silos won’t make the overall performance of the organisation any better). However nobody seems to want to do this. So, who’s resisting systems thinking? Executives don’t want it because means questioning the current mindset and behaviours that have brought them status and ‘results’ Individual managers don’t want it because they assume it threatens their control over their local silos L&D / HR don’t want it because their remit does not extent to the organisation, as its still rooted in the ‘performance’ of individuals (and occasionally, specific teams). And employees don't want it because they often don’t care / need to care about the overall organisation.
Read more

"The future of corporate Learning and Development" debate is five different things

"Pushing fancy new stuff onto your organisation will not change the outcomes if that is not emerging from your system itself, through the ripening of a different worldview." Stelio Verzera The perennial topic  of "The future of corporate Learning and Development" is always everywhere. This ' Shirky Principle ' fuels and sustains the status quo and the players that continue to benefit from it. I'd argue that the discussion is in fact five very   different conversations happening in parallel, but unequally distributed. They are - in current descending order of noise, ambition and opportunity: 1. 'MAKE THE TRAINING BETTER'. The status quo. The economic model. Dependent on maintaining the belief that educating individual workers changes the system through which complex, interconnected organisations perform. This narrative is carefully preserved by (mostly) commercial vendors who have filled the strategy vacuum. New technologies, new (and old) instruc
Read more