Phillip L. Davidson, Ph.D.

Many would agree that, if a person considered their work to be important and if they enjoyed their work, they would perform it well. In addition, if groups within an organization shared common values, conflict would be minimized and performance optimized. This is not "group think," but, rather, the idea that people working together, doing work that they value, working with others who share those same common values, can perform in a superior fashion to groups who do not share those common values.

This is not a new idea. Nadler and Tushman underscored the need to match individual values and organizational goals almost 20 years ago .

"Organizational behavior must be managed in spite of this overwhelming complexity; ultimately the organization’s work gets done through people, individually or collectively, on their own or in collaboration with technology. Therefore, the management of organizational behavior is central to the management task – a task that involves the capacity to understand [Nadler’s emphasis] the behavior patterns of individuals, groups, and organizations, to predict what behavioral responses will be elicited by various managerial actions, and finally to use this understanding and these predictions to achieve control."

The following information briefly summarizes more than seven years of work and research. This research is based on several assumptions:

• Everyone deserves the opportunity to perform work that is of value to him or her.

• Effective organizations benefit by having individuals who share organizational values.

• Values are not as changeable and transitory as they may appear in the public press and they offer a consistent framework for long-term planning.

This work was originally inspired by the installation of a major computer system at one of California's largest HMO's. There was a great deal of pressure by the executive management to have this system implementation happen in a very short time frame. There had never been an implementation of this size before, but estimates by the Information Technology (IT) management were a minimum of five years. History and experience suggested even that might not be likely. The executive medical management, however, wanted the project completed in 15 months.

Earlier, an outside consulting firm had been asked to assess the ability of this organization to implement large systems of this type. The consulting firm was extremely critical of the IT organization stating "Specific accountability and responsibility for [IT] projects is not supported by the organizational culture and reward structures; and, a sense of urgency to perform is not apparent". On the contrary, past history indicated that project extensions and running over budget were more likely. [In fairness to this particular IT group, it was noted that missing deadlines and budget overruns seems to be a norm for large IT groups in general.]

The eventual decision was made to create a team that consisted of two groups: the IT staff and a core group of end-users. The IT staff would have responsibility for the physical configuration and installation of the system while the end-user group would have overall implementation responsibility, including training.

This particular installation will be discussed in greater detail later, but what you have read sets the background. A gamble was taken that the end-users could drive the implementation to its goal more quickly than those people normally assigned the task. What were the variables that would allow this to happen or block the path to success?

The discovery process went something like this:

The population of people we are focusing on are those that work. They work for a variety of reasons, two principle reasons being income and accomplishment. When people are unhappy in their work, there are many root causes, two principle causes being insufficient income and the lack of ability to feel that an accomplishment can be made.

Income was not a variable we could control, so it was removed from the discovery process. Anecdotal information would also argue that income is not a straight line variable anyway in that there are many cases were people will work for sub-par incomes to be able to work at highly desirable jobs.

Another way of stating that people seek work where they can get a sense of accomplishment is say that people seek work that is of value to them. The equation can even be drawn more widely by stating that people would prefer to behave based on what is of value to them.

Using the word "value" creates enormous problems in our work. In some cases, it overlaps with "needs." Many include "morals" and "virtues" as synonyms for values. We have tried to utilize other words, but "value" is the correct word to use, and it is defined here as "a concept, distinctive of an individual, which influences the selection of an action before group evaluation." The last part -- "before group evaluation" -- is included because it is our belief that values are individual components. There are group values, but these are based on dialog, power, force, control, conflict, and a variety of other group dynamics such as family, church, school, and community. Regardless of the particular dynamic, the group values are only an implicit or explicit agreement as to which individual values are appropriately expressed by members of the group.

The question then becomes one of determining the exact nature of values. There is a long history here going back more than 200 years. Most prominent in this century is the work of Gordon Allport on Milton Rokeach as far as trying to establish clear lists and definitions of values .

We went through the literature and collected data from 29 studies of values in a variety of research areas from anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, social psychology, plus work and organizational values. The list included over 400 terms and statements reflecting values. By elimination of duplicates and synonyms, we eventually came up with a list of 92 values. This is, coincidentally, the same number of naturally occurring elements in the periodic table of elements. Therefore this list is commonly referred to as the "Periodic Table of Values."

A number of researchers have also suggested that values exist in a hierarchy , an idea we endorse. While space does not permit a full elaboration here, suffice it to say that individuals at different ages and experiencing different degrees of self-actualization tend to express values along a specific hierarchy. For that reason, the Periodic Table of Values is presented as a hierarchy based upon suggested points of development of those values.

Figure 1: Periodic Table of Values

[This information can also be seen at http://www.cedarcreek.org.]

There are 92 values in this hierarchy. Values come into play when a decision as to behavior must be made where there is some level of conflict. That would mean that an individual could have as many as 92 variables operational at any particular point of decision. It is unlikely that is the case. Regardless, at that decision point, the number of variables indicates just how complex a process this can be. In the work discussed in this paper, we focus on only two aspects of this equation: which values are operative, and what is the intensity with which those values are held.

The method used in determining which values are operational is a survey tool. The survey consists of 92 questions in its full configuration [a short 25-question form is used in certain situations]. Each question is multiple choice and might look something like the following:

Today -- the issues that concern me most are:

A. my survival.

B. my work.

C. my safety.

D. my family.

This is not an exact question from the survey, but it demonstrates the idea. Through the use of somewhat longer questions, we seek to measure which values are operational at the time the survey was taken.

It should be noted that values can and do change; however, not in the sense many think. What actually changes is the emphasis or de-emphasis on the expression of certain values. Are work over time (the longest study being five years) shows that personal values -- even under a variety of circumstances -- actually change very little in adults. We have done no work with children.

Once the operational values have been determined, there are two techniques used to determine the intensity with which those values are held. Our original work focused primarily on personal interviews. It is not difficult in such interviews to determine which values the respondent feels most strongly about. However, it is impossible to rule out personal bias of the interviewer.

The current technique is to provide the survey via a computer or through a website (such as a corporate Intranet). In either case, the time it takes for an individual to select a value appears to be directly related to how strongly they feel about that value. The computer program and the script behind the survey on the Internet site capture the exact response times and these correlate very well with data from interviews. It is also faster, automated, and apparently less threatening to the individual taking the test.

Figure 2: The Point of Value Interaction

It is possible to set up a mathematical equation to measure differences in what we call "value fields." This type of quantification is beyond the scope of this introductory paper, but suffice it to note that there are several factors relevant to human performance improvement here. The first step is to measure the operational values of an individual. This includes measuring value strength. We can then measure the same for key-decision makers and leaders of various organizational sub-groups (such as IT). Measuring the differences between these difference value fields will give a strong indication of real conflict and or cohesion.

There are three brief case studies that will indicate how value mapping can assist in improving overall human performance.

This graduate school offers Master's Degrees and Doctorates (Ph.D.) in a variety of sociological areas. The program has a value infrastructure that is clearly stated in their promotional material. This school has been in existence long enough that very few of the faculty that originally started with the school are still involved.

A shortened value survey (measuring goal values) was administered to the student body, to the faculty, and to the administration. While the overall evaluation is complex and quite lengthy, the short version is as follows:

• The students reflect the values of the organization (as published) much more so than do the faculty or the administration.

• The faculty is more focused on individual personal goals. There was very little overall agreement within this group as a whole. This last point is worth expanding. In virtually all group value studies, one can find a set of core values that are held my the majority of group members. That is sort of the nature of groups. In this instance, however, no such core values existed. There were a number of reasons why this was probably so, but it did point to a real problem area in trying to achieve any sort of consensus.

• The administration was more cohesive that the faculty, and their values were focused on structure, order, and getting the job done. This was a fairly typical administrative study.

From the standpoint of performance improvement, the original goal was to chart a path whereby students could be better served, the needs of the faculty met, and the efficiency of the administration increased. Unfortunately, the faculty was the central element in this study and -- short of starting over with a major overhaul of the faculty, problem resolution would be tenuous at best.

This refers back to the example discussed earlier in this paper. There were two groups involved. The first was a traditional mainframe IT group. The second was taken from the end-user community. The results were most interesting, the this was the longest study to-date, covering a total of five years.

For the IT group, the results indicated that structure, control, and learning (information) were the most frequently selected values. For the end-user group, work, beliefs, and equality were the top three values selected. A summary statement about each group is as follows:

• The IT group believe that organizational and system structure are essential and that their work is dedicated to maintaining control over that structure. Individual initiative is anathema to this type of work. All decisions are group decisions and actions verified by others. Continued learning of new skills is incredibly important.

• The end-user group defined themselves by their work. Their education background and training supported individual initiative and strongly supported the value of confidence and competence. This group would find group decision-making too slow and cumbersome. This group is also very focused on shared equality among its group members. As is common in strong group structures, there was also a tendency to denigrate other groups (such as the IT group), despite the high value rating for equality.

Many case studies are single events. The case study above (#2) covered five years and involved many value surveys charted across time. However, most value surveys tend to be one timed event. That was the case with this study.

A physician who owned and managed a private practice asked for a value survey. His practice included several other physicians, nurse practitioners, a physician assistant, and a number of nurses and medical assistants. There were a total of approximately 20 employees.

The contracting physician felt that the practice was becoming more "fragmented," and more difficult to control. He was spending more time in administering the practice rather than in working with patients, and that made him unhappy. He asked that all the staff participate in the value survey, and he participated as well.

The results in this case were predictable just from the early conversations with the owner and some of the staff. The value surveys however presented a unique method of clearly quantifying the issue to the participants, removing the feeling of bias and prejudice for the owner.

• The staff was a strongly cohesive group who held strong values around work, family, and community.

• The directing physician also held the value of family very strongly. In his talking, he often referred to his staff as family. Other values that were most often selected by this doctor were economic prosperity and control. In many respects, he saw himself as the "father" of this group, responsible for the control and economic prosperity of the group.

This study was very positive however in that, once understood, the directing physician relinquished much of his administrative work to a business manager, spent more time with staff and with his patients. Not only did all of the employees (including the directing physician) feel more positive about their work, but also the work flourished.

This is only the briefest of introductions to a very exciting yet complex field -- that of value studies. The tools we use, value surveys and organizational audits, provide ways of determining values that are operational at any particular time.

Values are incredible potent determiners of behavior. Knowledge of the values that are operational provides individuals better tools for selecting work and projects that better aid in their own sense of accomplishment. In addition, this knowledge allows organizations to better accomplish both short and long-term goals.

Most organizations now have both mission statements and value statements. They can spend considerable time in crafting these, frequently doing so with a strong emphasis on the marketability of these statements. However, organizations, employees, and customers are becoming more and more demanding that organizations "walk the talk" of these formal statements. Value studies provide quick, easy, and reliable methods that allow organizational leaders to see just how closely their published statements match reality.

About the author: