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.