I would argue the value hasn't caused anything. A series of practical changes to processes, policies, KPIs, remuneration etc which might be grouped under the banner of "innovation" are what's caused the change (if there has indeed been one).
Much of the time, organisations proclaim one value while making the relevant behaviours really hard to do and incentivising people to do the opposite.
Paul, I certainly have a set of values I share with my partner, that shapes our behavior. The values and principles are a bedrock for our family and have shaped the decisions we have made.
While I see the point you’re making , many companies and teams just hang a mission statement on the wall or type up some values that sound good in the website.
But every company has a set of values that drive behavior and that behavior produces outcomes whether they’re defined or not.
Jordan, I have to disagree. There's no credible evidence that corporate values change anybody's behaviours. But there's endless examples of badly behaving organisations that had values in place. For more on this see:
This is a great article"The Nonsense of Corporate Values". Admittingly, I've never worked for or with a large corporation, only with smaller businesses and sports teams, where it's easy to see the alignment of values, behavior, and strategy.
I'm curious your thoughts on a company like P&G. Many of their values and principles seemed to have shaped the longevity of the organization, or is that just..bullshit?
The reality is, the values to behaviours causal chain is largely a myth.
Most human decisions - and behaviours - are not the result of careful, conscious deliberation of the sort where “values” might be considered.
Instead, most decisions occur without any conscious awareness at all, often as a result of learned and/or evolved heuristics.
Instead of solving a hard question like “what should I do?”, our brains conserve energy and solve a simpler question that (often) gives an adequate answer - “what’s everyone else doing!”, “what do I normally do?”, “what’s easiest?”, or “what feels good?”
While we retrospectively explain our behaviour in terms of logical thinking, that’s an after the event fiction we create.
In an organisational context, the complex environment of social norms, processes, policies, systems, tools, physical environment, org charts, KPIs, remuneration, promotion criteria, job titles, rumours, gossip, and hearsay all combine to provide answers to those simple heuristics.
Organisations that truly want to change behaviours need to try and align all/most of those levers in the same direction, which is immensely difficult to do.
I agree that behavior is complicated. And just saying this is our value doesn’t “cause “ a behavior; but values can certainly drive behaviors in a certain direction.
I’m sure 3m has innovation as a value. That value causes certain departments the autonomy to work on whatever passion project they 20 percent of the time. Autonomy is an instrinsic driver for individuals. So while the value of innovation doesn’t directly cause a behavior it certainly helps create a culture of innovation and creation
It's just bullshit. All the big FMCG companies claim to be "sustainable" as their forever plastics fill the world's oceans. They completely disingenuously claim their plastic is 100% recyclable - while knowing full well that less than 10% of it globally ever gets recycled. The rest goes into landfill or the ocean.
Meanwhile, small companies that genuinely care are producing similar products in completely biodegradable packaging. It can be easily done, but they prioritise profits and greenwash the results.
Yes, it seems absurd to change the behaviours to the new CEO.
This could be done at home at the same time, then it would be perceived correctly as insane behaviour.
No. without some synthesised values and behaviours then the CEO is not really able to lead.
The invitation I guess is to move existing behaviours as little as possible. For the consultants not to shape the values and behaviours from an idealistic and fairytale view point.
Reality is the system is all the parts, and all the people. The more we accept the entirety of the system, the more we can precisely find the smallest change possible to make the biggest difference.
Thanks. There is likely more to write on the no evidence designing desired behaviours, it does seem like the norm even though there looks like no evidence to support it being the norm.
There might not be any evidence that designing desired behaviours changes how people behave. However, I spoke of values and as a consequence behaviours. The new CEO needs a voice.
I think part of the real problem is that it’s not the new CEO’s voice, it’s the consultants who are pretending to design programs that will change behaviours.
I hear you and would guess we are closer to being on the same page.
I liked what you were writing and wanted to comment for you.
I would argue the value hasn't caused anything. A series of practical changes to processes, policies, KPIs, remuneration etc which might be grouped under the banner of "innovation" are what's caused the change (if there has indeed been one).
Much of the time, organisations proclaim one value while making the relevant behaviours really hard to do and incentivising people to do the opposite.
Why is this?
Paycheck.
We comply openly (acting) with the new paradigm then go about our business in the usual natural way we work.
You are most likely right! The amount of unquestioned nonsense at work is staggering.
Paul, I certainly have a set of values I share with my partner, that shapes our behavior. The values and principles are a bedrock for our family and have shaped the decisions we have made.
While I see the point you’re making , many companies and teams just hang a mission statement on the wall or type up some values that sound good in the website.
But every company has a set of values that drive behavior and that behavior produces outcomes whether they’re defined or not.
Jordan, I have to disagree. There's no credible evidence that corporate values change anybody's behaviours. But there's endless examples of badly behaving organisations that had values in place. For more on this see:
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulsweeney/p/the-nonsense-of-corporate-values?r=2fchgv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This is a great article"The Nonsense of Corporate Values". Admittingly, I've never worked for or with a large corporation, only with smaller businesses and sports teams, where it's easy to see the alignment of values, behavior, and strategy.
I'm curious your thoughts on a company like P&G. Many of their values and principles seemed to have shaped the longevity of the organization, or is that just..bullshit?
The reality is, the values to behaviours causal chain is largely a myth.
Most human decisions - and behaviours - are not the result of careful, conscious deliberation of the sort where “values” might be considered.
Instead, most decisions occur without any conscious awareness at all, often as a result of learned and/or evolved heuristics.
Instead of solving a hard question like “what should I do?”, our brains conserve energy and solve a simpler question that (often) gives an adequate answer - “what’s everyone else doing!”, “what do I normally do?”, “what’s easiest?”, or “what feels good?”
While we retrospectively explain our behaviour in terms of logical thinking, that’s an after the event fiction we create.
In an organisational context, the complex environment of social norms, processes, policies, systems, tools, physical environment, org charts, KPIs, remuneration, promotion criteria, job titles, rumours, gossip, and hearsay all combine to provide answers to those simple heuristics.
Organisations that truly want to change behaviours need to try and align all/most of those levers in the same direction, which is immensely difficult to do.
I agree that behavior is complicated. And just saying this is our value doesn’t “cause “ a behavior; but values can certainly drive behaviors in a certain direction.
I’m sure 3m has innovation as a value. That value causes certain departments the autonomy to work on whatever passion project they 20 percent of the time. Autonomy is an instrinsic driver for individuals. So while the value of innovation doesn’t directly cause a behavior it certainly helps create a culture of innovation and creation
It's just bullshit. All the big FMCG companies claim to be "sustainable" as their forever plastics fill the world's oceans. They completely disingenuously claim their plastic is 100% recyclable - while knowing full well that less than 10% of it globally ever gets recycled. The rest goes into landfill or the ocean.
Meanwhile, small companies that genuinely care are producing similar products in completely biodegradable packaging. It can be easily done, but they prioritise profits and greenwash the results.
Nice call out.
Yes and No.
Yes, it seems absurd to change the behaviours to the new CEO.
This could be done at home at the same time, then it would be perceived correctly as insane behaviour.
No. without some synthesised values and behaviours then the CEO is not really able to lead.
The invitation I guess is to move existing behaviours as little as possible. For the consultants not to shape the values and behaviours from an idealistic and fairytale view point.
Reality is the system is all the parts, and all the people. The more we accept the entirety of the system, the more we can precisely find the smallest change possible to make the biggest difference.
Thanks. There is likely more to write on the no evidence designing desired behaviours, it does seem like the norm even though there looks like no evidence to support it being the norm.
Thanks, Katrina, but I do disagree. There's simply no evidence that defining desired behaviours changes how people behave.
Thanks Paul.
There might not be any evidence that designing desired behaviours changes how people behave. However, I spoke of values and as a consequence behaviours. The new CEO needs a voice.
I think part of the real problem is that it’s not the new CEO’s voice, it’s the consultants who are pretending to design programs that will change behaviours.
I hear you and would guess we are closer to being on the same page.
I liked what you were writing and wanted to comment for you.
Ah OK I understand. Thanks for the clarification Katrina. And I agree with your point on the consultant's pretence!