Values change with a clear mandate and when translated into structures.
Here is a case study from our consulting practice: We are sharing it because many organizations struggle with “values” – and because it can be a relief to see where cultural change actually occurs without having to instruct it.
The problem
The new corporate values are here. Carefully formulated, graphically appealing, and clearly visible on meeting walls, on the intranet, and in the cafeteria. And yet, everything remains the same in everyday work: meetings continue as usual, and the old logic prevails when it comes to decisions and conflicting goals. And there is just as much “courage,” “error culture,” or “trust” as there was before.
Management is then often surprised by the lack of ownership. “We clearly stated what we stand for.” At the same time, you hear phrases in teams that you don't want to write down, but which explain a lot: “Values are nice, but in the end, what really counts is what is rewarded when in doubt.”
The real problem is not that the values are “wrong.” It is that they are treated as a message and not as a decision-making and leadership system. This is precisely where it is decided whether “we” becomes a real ‘we’ or remains a cliché.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... Values were not to be “anchored” through campaigns and workshops, but rather serve as common decision-making criteria: What choice do we make when two things cannot be done at the same time? And what consequences do we draw from this in terms of collaboration, leadership, HR, and management?
Values do not become binding simply by being repeated often enough. They become effective when teams and leadership use them in real deliberations, especially when several options are plausible. This is precisely where it becomes apparent whether a value just sounds good or really provides guidance in everyday life.
Our solution and intervention
We use two ideas from our values work that have proven themselves in many contexts: clarify the mandate and translate it into structures, instead of just talking about attitude.
By “clarify the mandate,” we mean: What should the values be binding for, and who gets to decide in case of doubt? Only then is it worth translating them into structures. Because structures do not make binding what has not been decided as binding beforehand.
- Empower managers so that they don't just “preach” values, but can use them as a management tool: values as behavioral anchors, as decision-making aids, as a common language for expectations. And enable them to transfer these into their individual context together with their employees.
- Team workshops for translating words into everyday situations: Managers conduct short, concrete workshops with their teams:
- What does value X mean for us in terms of decisions, collaboration, customer contact?
- What would be an example of this (and what would be a counterexample)?
- What needs to happen more in our company? What less? What differently? This turns “we are like this” into observable behavior, and teams quickly notice where the old values conflict with the new ones.
- The value check in real business meetings: The lever that has the most impact is deliberately simple: with every tough decision, the explicit question is asked: “Which of our new values supports this decision or contradicts it?”
- This sounds simple, but it is uncomfortable enough to reveal patterns. Suddenly, it becomes possible to discuss why something is being done and what side effects this has on the culture.
- Management systems as a litmus test: Do our structures support our values or do they sabotage them? At the same time, we look at the “hard” systems with HR and management: Where do the values anchored in the system really take effect and where are they neutralized by opposing systems and processes? Typical test points: Target systems, performance and feedback logic, selection/promotion, recognition/bonuses, decision-making rights. Values only become binding when they play a role in such mechanisms.
- Important: This review is not a “major overhaul on suspicion.” It is a consistent question: What would have to change to make ownership possible in the first place? (If personal responsibility is desired, decision-making leeway must be real. Otherwise, cynicism is unintentionally produced.)
The result
Values change their function: from abstract concepts to concrete decision-making tools. In conflict situations, teams can justify why they are doing something, and leadership can not only use “we” language, but also make it clear that values have consequences.
Incidentally, something happens that unfortunately cannot be instructed, but which occurs very reliably when the mechanics are right: “We” seems less like a poster slogan and more like a common framework that employees actually use for guidance in their everyday work.
Quick action:
Take any value from your organization's presentation materials and look at your everyday work through this lens for a week: What do you notice? What would really need to change for this value to become part of your everyday work?
