One of the things that confounds me the most about the conversations that take place around values, brand and culture, is the assumption people make about values and their relationship to ethics, or to popular positive behavioral constructs. It’s a fairly common view.
Take this following exchange as an example.
@gahlord @CounselorAdrian the notion that values and profit won't align is a misguided notion.
— Jeff Turner 📷 (@jeffturner) February 10, 2014
@CounselorAdrian I suppose that is true if you equate corporate values with ethics. I don't. cc @gahlord
— Jeff Turner 📷 (@jeffturner) February 11, 2014
When I say values, people hear ethics. Some of you reading this right now are probably even thinking, “yeah, and…”
And… while I think the world would be a better place if everyone’s values were ethical, or moral, or wholly positive in nature, they are not. And… for values-based leadership to be effective, the values don’t have to be any of those things. The effectiveness of a values-based approach is not dependent on how closely the values align with society’s moral constructs, or popular beliefs around how people “should” behave.
The effectiveness of a values-based approach is dependent on the following:
- whether the values are clearly defined by the organization,
- whether the values can be articulated by members of the organization,
- whether the values are integrated into how the organization does business,
- whether the values consistently help the organization achieve it’s goals,
- whether the values are consistently experienced by those outside of the organization, and…
- whether and how people are held accountable for living the Values.
For years and years, Italian-American crime families were held together by a set of core values that essentially extended the values typically associated with “kinship” beyond blood bonds. Many of these values were not “moral” in nature or in their outcome, especially those surrounding secrecy involving all things legal or illegal. But they were clearly articulated, members of the organization knew exactly what they were, their business was run by those values and anyone who did business with them could see them lived out in their actions. And, most importantly from a business success standpoint, those who did not live the values were held accountable by paying the ultimate price. And those who lived the values without fail were rewarded.
The values were not simply talked. They were lived. Unwavering accountability ultimately was the key to their success in the organization. Nobody was above the values. Nobody got a pass – until those values began to break down. Some historians believe that the breakdown of these “families” is in large part a result of the acceptance and integration of modern American family and business values. As these new values encroached on the organization, they broke down the once unwavering commitment and authority of the values that solidified those “families.”
In her book, The Business Of Organized Crime, Annelise Graebner Anderson points out these arguments in the the works of Francis Ianni. “Ianni predicts that utilitarian values – ability rather than ascribed status – will become increasingly important within organized crime familes,” she writes, “and will ultimately lead to a business structure that is more bureaucratic and more like American business corporations.” Further she clarified that Ianni believed that the weakening of the values related to kinship in Italian-American families would contribute to the weakening of their previously strong crime families.
The strength of the organization was found in a strong, clear, consistently lived set of core values. And these values were led from the top of the organizational structure all the way to the bottom. The strength was not based in the ethical or moral nature of those values. This is an important distinction that often gets lost in translation.
[pq align=right]Your stated values become powerful only when they are aligned with your actions.[/pq] Corporations who try to align their values with accepted, positive moral constructs do themselves a disservice if those values are not actually lived inside the organization. If people are not rewarded for living them, or held accountable for not living them.
Example: Don’t be tempted to say, “we value work/life balance” because you think it will motivate employees when your company reward structures are designed to compensate people who value overtime instead of family time. There is no power in that. It would be more powerful to say this,:”We value sacrifice. We believe hard work is the greatest virtue and that it often comes at a price. That price is 100% commitment to the organization and its goals. If you’re willing to pay that price, you will be rewarded greatly.” You’ll attract people who want exactly that. Your turnover will likely be high, but the result might be stellar. That’s not moral. That’s not immoral. That’s just a clear statement of what you really value.
Ultimately, the power behind a values-based approach to business lies is in leadership’s ability to insure that the values are lived by every person in the organization. If people aren’t held accountable to the values, they have no power. That has nothing to do with whether living them points to an ethical or unethical outcome.
—-
Featured image credit: MsSaraKelly
Excellent reminder of the distinction between values and ethics. This distinction made The Godfather, Scarface, Good Fellas, and The Soprano’s such compelling dramas to watch.
Companies that are honest about their values (ethical or not) will get much better alignment with their employees than those that make a list of what they think sounds good on a brochure or company website.
Exactly, Bob. I have personally witnessed, in both a small company and a large public company, the negative impact of values stated but not lived. It would have been better to have never said anything at all.
Maybe your best post, Jeff.
Quite the compliment, coming from you, Chris. Thank you.
The effectiveness of a values based approach can only be assured by helping employees be the best they can be, not dictating to them.
Why? All people believe in the very same good values and that their opposites are bad. So the workforce already has the right values. They only need to be helped to do their work to the highest standards of all those good values. This is done not by dictating to them (preaching to the choir), but by listening to them and responding to what they say to their satisfaction or better even if it means explaining why they cannot have what they want. This is superior leadership.
These two articles may help.
http://www.bensimonton.com/onleadership/what-is-leadership/
http://www.bensimonton.com/good-vs-bad-leadership.html
Ben, even if I agreed that “all people believe in the very same good values,” and I’m not sure I do, people do not all live those values consistently. And my definition of what it means to live a value may vary widely from yours. This post was not advocating dictatorial leadership, but focused specifically on illustrating that values take all forms. Their power does not come from their inherent “goodness.”
I agree that they do not live those values because they have been forced by an authoritarian society to conform. So when the President lies, they conform by lying on those things they want to lie about. In the workplace, they conform/follow the value standards transmitted to them by what management does and does not do, not what management says.
Every person loves to be treated to things reflecting the highest standards of all good values and hates being treated to things reflecting bad values. If their workplace only reflects the highest standards of all values, they will be “led” to treat their work, their customers, each other, and their bosses with the same great respect.
I very much doubt that you and I would disagree on what reflects the highest standards such as being heard and being respected in the workplace. For me, being heard whenever I want to put in my two cents would heaven on earth. For me, being respected would be given a respectable response to my satisfaction whenever I put in my two cents and would be heaven on earth. Would you agree with that?
This confusion is especially true in professions where there is a written “Code of Ethics”. Many times it “seems” that the most successful are the ones who follow the code least often. Morals and Ethics are ideals that society ascribes to uphold. Values (those that our actions support) are what we do to survive on a daily basis. Nice job, Jeff:)
There was the beginning of an interesting discussion that was appearing to head that direction on Twitter the other day, Mike. It was coming out of the NAR AEI conference in Baltimore. It was relative to where “values” should be driven from… the local association or from NAR. My personal opinion is that it should rest with whoever has the ability to give them teeth? Who has the ability to insure that the values are actually lived and can hold members accountable?
Great post, Jeff. I applaud the distinction between ethics and values. Ethics provide moral clarity. Values provide strategic direction. While both ethics and values are components of leadership, most stated values only address the issue of moral clarity and miss the greater opportunity to provide strategic direction.
Robert, thank you and thank you for dropping in to comment. For most companies, their values have loose definitions and inconsistent interpretations of how they get lived in the business environment. They don’t articulate examples of how a specific value works in the real world. And even when companies and people have them clearly defined, they often don’t consciously connect how they live them with the results they get in all of our interactions. And so, they never get to experience the greater opportunity you’re referring to.