A values process is not a project that can be started “in HR” and then later brought to “management.”
A quick note before we begin: The following examples are taken from our consulting practice. We are sharing them because similar situations occur in many organizations—and because recognizing typical patterns early on can help you avoid some detours.
The problem
The contact is surprisingly often similar: a human resources manager or a second-level manager contacts us with a request for a values process or cultural development. The trigger is rarely “cultural romanticism,” but rather hard signals from everyday life.
Typical indications we hear (and which HR, OE, and change people recognize immediately) are:
- Increasing turnover in key areas
- “Good people are quietly leaving”
- High sick leave, combined with thin staffing levels
- More mistakes, more friction
- Collaboration is becoming more difficult: silos, blame, email wars instead of decisions
- Leadership is perceived as inconsistent: a lot of trust in one area, micromanagement in the next
- Employee survey: declining commitment, “we talk past each other,”
- little psychological security, clearly visible inner resignation to the point of apathy in many areas (!)
- Customers sense it indirectly: delivery capability, quality, response times – small cracks everywhere
The person who calls us is often neither naive nor power-hungry. On the contrary: they see the pattern, they have data, they know the stories. And they are often quite alone in the system. The “lone wolf” with a genuine concern, but without a mandate that is big enough.
And this is precisely where the problem begins: A values process is not a project that can be started “in HR” and then later taken up by “management.” Values interfere with the operating system of the organization. They require a clear idea of “how things should be,” but also consequences. And consequences must be decided where power, resources, and structural responsibility lie.
Hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... Values work were not understood as a well-intentioned initiative of individuals, but as a binding decision by company management, including a willingness to adapt structures and management logic.
For us, this includes two core assumptions:
- Values must be desired – and supported – from above. Not in the sense of “the board says a few clever sentences,” but in the sense of: We are prepared to change decisions, target systems, leadership behavior, and the distribution of responsibility in such a way that the values become possible in everyday life. Without this commitment, values quickly emerge that sound good to the outside world but cause cynicism internally: “Is there really trust when we have every decision approved three times?” Does management really want to take responsibility when they themselves sign off on the new room allocation?
- Values must support the strategy – not replace it. Values are not a collection of nice character traits. They are a conscious selection of the behavior and type of collaboration the organization needs to make its strategic direction more likely. If there is no clear strategy (or if it is understood differently by management), a values process cannot “moderate” this away. Then the first thing that needs to be clarified is: Where do we want to go – and what kind of collaboration and leadership makes this path realistic?
Solution/Intervention
Our approach therefore does not start with workshops for mission statements, but with two tough clarifications.
1. Discussions with the board, owners, and management: Mandate and price of values work
We conduct targeted discussions to make the connection clear: Values are only helpful if they become binding – and binding always comes at a price.
A few typical examples that quickly become concrete in these discussions:
- If “personal responsibility” is to be a value, there must be real scope for decision-making. Then managers must be prepared to relinquish control, and processes must be designed so that decisions are made where the information is available.
- If “cooperation” is central, an appeal is not enough. Interfaces, conflicting goals, bonus logic, or prioritization systems often need to be adjusted – otherwise, each department remains trapped in its own optimization.
- If “openness/feedback” is desired, psychological security must be strengthened. This often means consistently addressing behavior that creates fear (devaluation, blame, sanctions for bad news).
- If “customer focus” is emphasized, internal rules that hinder customer benefit must be addressed – including responsibilities, escalation paths, and decision-making speed.
This phase is sometimes the real turning point because it asks the question that is otherwise often avoided: Do we really want new values, or do we want a poster?
2. Clarify strategy, then choose values that support the direction
In the second step, we work together to check whether the strategic direction is sufficiently clear. If not, we first engage in strategic clarification.
Once the mandate and strategy are in place, we enter into a participatory process with employees: The values are formulated as behavioral anchors that support the implementation of the strategy: What needs to happen more in everyday life? What less? Which decisions will this make easier? Value work is therefore not about agreeing on nice-sounding terms, but about working out together which behaviors will be rewarded, expected, and demanded in the future. And: how this will be visible in meetings, projects, leadership, and collaboration. What specifically should our experience promise be to ourselves and our partners?
Result
The results vary, and that is precisely the most important learning experience!
Case A: Strategy is unclear: clarification first, then values
In some organizations, it becomes clear after discussions that there are too many conflicting goals, too little priority, and too little common vision. In such cases, we don't start with values, but with clarifying the strategy. The effect is often immediately noticeable: decisions become easier, conflicts become more identifiable, and the subsequent work on values has substance.
Case B: Strong commitment from company management: values come to life
If the board/company management really supports the process and the strategy is clear, a values process can be enormously effective: employees experience that their perspective counts, and managers work consistently on implementation, including adjustments in responsibilities, routines, and target systems. This results in values that are not “communicated” but recognized in everyday life.
Case C: Values are “desired” but not wanted
And sometimes the management team is honest: they would like to see “culture improve,” but they don't want the consequences. No change in the distribution of power, no adjustment of structures, no conflicts, no unreasonable demands. Better a “poster” than real change.
This is also a clear decision, and our recommendation is: values mean concrete interventions in leadership and organization, and those who do not want this should not start a values process.
Otherwise, you will produce disappointment, cynicism, and the next round of “cultural initiatives” that no one takes seriously anymore.
First check:
- Which of the two clarifications are you lacking: mandate or direction?
- And how do you notice this first in everyday life?
Next Tuesday, you will find a new case study from our practice here. Stay tuned!
