snakes and ladders: navigating the territory of values-led ... · snakes and ladders: navigating...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Conceptual paper
Snakes and ladders: navigating the territory of
values-led leadership
Dr. Sarah Lee
Professor Malcolm Higgs
Southampton Business School
University of Southampton
Highfield Campus
Southampton
Hampshire SO17 1BJ
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 5477
Email: [email protected]
2
Snakes and ladders: navigating the territory of values-led leadership
Abstract
Personal and societal values – or the lack of them – are the frequent subject of media
attention and popular debate. Rallying cries for a return to “traditional” values are made
with scant insight into the nature and development of values and the complexities of values
change in practice. In the organisational arena, values have become a familiar part of
leadership discourse, not only in those leadership forms that may be loosely coupled under
the terms values-led or “values-based” leadership (Kraemer, 2011), such as ethical and
authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and Trevino, 2006), but also in connection
with the burgeoning literature on corporate social responsibility (see Aguinis and Glavas,
2012) and responsible leadership (Stahl and De Luque, 2014; Crilly et al., 2008; Waldman
and Galvin, 2008). Yet questions remain about the nature of personal and organisational
values and their role in leadership development and practice.
Although values are often implied in normative leadership models, they are actually
expressed in terms of personal characteristics, behaviours and virtues. For instance, Hind et
al. (2009) identified thirty attributes of [ethical] responsible leaders from the literature,
which include personal qualities, such as honesty and trustworthiness; and behaviours, such
as willingness to act on criticism and not making unrealistic demands on self and others. The
different types of variables and the different ways in which they are measured, present
challenges for those interested in adopting a values perspective to leadership research.
Furthermore, the prime focus of much writing on authentic, ethical and transformational
leadership remains rooted in the “heroic” or “larger-than-life” (Meindl et al., 1985)
archetype, in relation to the character and behaviour of executive leaders (e.g. George,
2003). However, unlike chief executives, those at lower levels of the organisation may not
have the authority to act on their values and principles, nor feel the freedom to be their
“true self” at work. It may be intuitively appealing to act in accordance with higher [ethical]
principles, but in reality, normative pressures and other situational factors intervene. When
3
faced with a difficult decision and multiple, competing pressures, values, as abstract
conceptions of the desirable (Kluckhorn, 1951), may not suggest a clear way forward.
In this paper, we argue that in order to move beyond the prescriptive and often rhetorical
language that all too often features in writing on values and leadership, further conceptual
development and research needs to include more systematic consideration of values, and
the ways in which they can support or inhibit leadership practice in contemporary
organisations. We examine key elements of the personal values literature and recognise the
problematic nature of the field. We then outline the relevance of values to a number of
leadership forms, and distinguish between personal and organisational values. In the course
of the discussion we focus on two areas in particular which, we suggest, are important to
developing and refining our understanding of the values-led leadership territory: (i) Should
values-led leaders enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are
the leadership implications when organisations fail to live up to their values? Based on the
issues raised in the paper, we conclude by suggesting opportunities for further exploration
and research.
By highlighting some of the conceptual and practical challenges, this paper speaks to the
contemporary debates on values and leadership from both conceptual and practice
perspectives. In navigating this promising and developing field, researchers and
practitioners face the challenge of avoiding the “snakes”, in the form of theoretical and
practical difficulties with the values concept, and to recognise the “ladders” that represent
genuine opportunities to further understanding and to benefit values-led practice.
4
Introduction
The recognition that values are important, linked in some way to behaviours and feelings,
and of relevance of our understanding of what it is to be human is signified by their
occurrence in popular debate in a range of contexts. The values and behaviour of politicians,
public figures and executives have come under increasing media scrutiny over the last
decade. Equally, in organisational scholarship, values have become a familiar part of the
leadership discourse, not only in relation to those leadership forms that may be loosely
coupled under the terms values-led or “values-based” leadership (Kraemer, 2011), such as
ethical and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and Trevino, 2006), but also in
connection with the burgeoning literature on corporate social responsibility (see Aguinis
and Glavas, 2012) and responsible leadership (Stahl and De Luque, 2014; Crilly et al., 2008;
Waldman and Galvin, 2008). Yet questions remain about the nature of personal and
organisational values and their role in leadership development and practice.
We begin by examining the problematic nature of the personal values concept and then
consider its application to “values-led” forms of leadership and to organisations. This helps
to clarify the distinction between leaders’ personal values, espoused and enacted
organisational values and the idea of shared values. In the course of the discussion we focus
on two areas in particular which, we suggest, are important to developing and refining our
understanding of the values-led leadership territory: (i) Should values-led leaders enable
followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are the leadership
implications when organisations fail to live up to their values? In relation to these questions,
we suggest the practical implications for leadership development and practice, informed by
our own research in organisations that espouse a strong, values-based culture. We conclude
with areas of future research on the topic of values and leadership.
5
Personal values theory: the “problem” with values
Conceptual and definitional issues
Reviews of values literature (for example, Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000; Meglino
and Ravlin, 1998) emphasise the problematic nature of the field. Calls for a universally
agreed definition of the values construct have been made by values scholars over a number
of decades (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000; Connor and Becker, 1979; Kluckhorn,
1951) . While a number of suggestions have been put forward (Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach,
1973; Allport, 1961; Kluckhorn, 1951), different theoretical approaches within fields such as
psychology, sociology, philosophy and political science have contributed to what Erickson
(1995, p.123) calls “the profusion of definitions-by-discipline” and separate streams of
research. Moreover, values are often conflated with attitudes, traits, norms, needs,
ideologies and beliefs (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan and Zanna, 2001). This implies that
research relating to other constructs may be pertinent to values without actually using the
term (Rohan, 2000). Even within values research, as Higgs and Lichtenstein (2009) point out,
there is a proliferation of value taxonomies and survey instruments, such as the Schwartz
Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992); the List of Values (Kahle, 1996); Rokeach’s Value Survey
(Rokeach, 1973) and proprietary measures. Becker and Connor (1994) also raise the issue
that values are conceived and measured at different levels, such as person, group, society or
culture, and with varying degrees of specificity, such as work values, moral values or general
values.
Values are popularly conceived as timeless, guiding principles, linked in some way to
behaviours and feelings, and fundamental to our understanding of what it is to be human
(Rohan, 2000). A person’s idiosyncratic set of value priorities may be regarded as in some
way expressive of his or her identity, giving a sense of coherence over time and across
situations. Indeed, Maslow (1962) states that the search for identity is effectively a search
for one’s intrinsic and authentic values. Values are experienced as “deeply propriate”
(Allport, 1961’, p. 454) even though they are socially patterned and communicated.
However, the self-expressive nature of values is only one facet of the values concept.
6
Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) list five characteristics of values commonly found in the
psychological literature: (i) they are cognitive concepts or beliefs, (ii) refer to desirable end
states or behaviours, (iii) transcend specific situations, (iv) guide the selection and
evaluation of behaviour and events, and (v) are ordered by relative importance. As “criteria
or standards of preference” (Williams, 1979, p.16) values guide people’s judgement about
desirable or undesirable ways of behaving, and about the desirability or otherwise of
general goals.
Although generally conceived as cognitive structures, it is clear that values have strong,
positive emotional associations. Kluckhorn (1951, p.400) speaks of “the union of reason and
feeling inherent in the word value” and, more recently, Hitlin (2003, p.132) describes values
as “emotion-laden conceptions of the desirable”. We feel attached to our values, and
indeed inducing people to consider logically the reasons why they place importance on a
particular value can result in value change (Maio and Olson, 1998).
The relationship between values and behaviour
Experimental research has identified a connection between value preferences and preferred
courses of action (Feather, 1996; Feather, 1995), and yet the relationship between values
and behaviour remains controversial. Nevertheless, the idea that values shape attitudes and
behaviour has captured the popular imagination, including that of writers on organisational
culture and leadership, whether in pursuit of profit maximisation or wider ethical concerns.
Rokeach (1968) argues that values constitute the organising principles for thousands of
beliefs and attitudes. His view that values directly affect attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes underpins the values-confrontation approach to attitude and behaviour change
(Rokeach, 1973). However, Kristiansen and Hotte (1996) comment that the notion of values
as guiding forces for more specific attitudes and behaviour is intuitively appealing but
difficult to demonstrate empirically. Their critique of Rokeach’s (1973) studies concludes
that the relations between values, attitudes and behaviours are often small, and Murray et
al. (1996) point out the largely correlational nature of the work. Studies using Schwartz’s
value structure have specified certain conditions under which values affect behaviour
7
(Verplanken and Holland, 2002; Murray et al., 1996) but these generally focus on single
value priorities operating under experimental conditions. Nevertheless, as we explain later
in the chapter, the idea that values shape attitudes and behaviour has proved enticing to
writers on organisational culture and leadership, whether in pursuit of profit maximisation
or wider ethical concerns.
Values measurement
The dominant paradigm in values research is based on the use of quantitative methods,
survey instruments and experimental approaches. Undoubtedly, however, values research
has been hugely facilitated and given impetus by the development and validation of a
universal structure of values and associated measures (Schwartz, 1992). In Schwartz’s
theory, values are classified into ten types (re-classified into nineteen, more granular types
in his most recent work (Schwartz et al., 2012)), each representing a cluster of single values,
based on the overarching motivational goal they express. His model, shown in Figure 1
below, represents the value types in a circular structure, which depicts the relationships
between them. Values which express complementary motives are placed in adjacent
positions, and values that express conflicting motives are placed opposite each other.
Self-Direction Universalism
Benevolence
Stimulation
Hedonism
Achievement
Power Security
Conformity
Tradition
Self-transcendence
Conservation
Openness to change
Self-enhancement
8
Figure 1: Schwartz's universal value structure, adapted from Schwartz (1992)).
Two motivational dimensions are also shown in Figure 1 above, which describe higher order
value types or orientations. One dimension contrasts self-enhancement values, which
promote self-interest, with self-transcendent values, which emphasise the welfare of others.
The second contrasts conservation values, which focus on certainty and the status quo, with
openness values, which are concerned with pursuit of self-directed interests in
unpredictable or uncertain directions. Although the structure of values is universal, people
differ in the priority they assign to particular values. An individual’s set of value priorities is
termed their personal value system (Rohan, 2000).
The model in Figure 1 above helps to demonstrate the inevitability of conflict between
values, whether or not a particular event is experienced as an ethical or moral dilemma.
Schwartz’s values structure represents “the relations of conflict and compatibility among
values” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 3), and the higher order value types (openness to
change/conservation and self-interest/self-transcendence) represent polar opposite
orientations. Individuals must make choices about the relative importance of different and
potentially competing values, and these choices represent trade-offs or concessions – giving
priority to a particular value at the expense of another (Tetlock, 1986). Schwartz (1996, p. 2)
asserts that values are likely to be activated and to enter awareness in the presence of
values conflicts. Such conflicts are essentially discrepancies between two cognitions,
resulting in dissonance or unpleasant psychological tension which, according to Festinger’s
cognitive dissonance theory (1957), the individual is motivated to resolve. However, this
does not necessarily mean that the conflict can be dissipated with no personal cost:
confronting values conflicts may involve making a choice supportive of one or more values
but opposed to others which are also important to the individual.
It is worth noting here that value conflicts may also result from a discrepancy between
personal value system priorities and an individual’s perception of the value priorities of
others – termed social value systems (Rohan, 2000). While people have only one personal
value system, they are likely to have multiple social value systems, such as work team and
9
organisation. Faced with such a conflict, people must decide whether to conform to others’
expectations (social value system priorities) or to their personal value system priorities. This
is particularly relevant in the organisational context, where perceived organisational values
(or the lack of them) and cultural expectations clash with an employee’s personal value
priorities.
Relating abstract values to concrete experience
In spite of the significant advances in our understanding of values made possible by
Schwartz’s theory (reviewed in Schwartz, 2011), we suggest that the meaning that values
hold for individuals, and the operation of values in real-life contexts, may have been
overlooked as a consequence of the survey methods which are typically used in to measure
personal value priorities divorced from situated experience.
In their theoretical model, Robertson and Callinan (1998) portray values as one of a number
of variables involved in cognitive-affective mediating processes which, together with a
number of other fixed or situational factors, influence behaviour. However, it is difficult to
isolate the role of values, as opposed to other variables. Furthermore, In exploring “real-life”
events and experiences, a key difficulty for researchers is to relate values, which are
abstract cognitions (Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach, 1973), to context-specific attitudes and
situationally-based behaviours. Values may be regarded as latent variables: they are not
observable and thus we can only make inferences about values manifested in action
(Hechter, 1993; Kluckhorn, 1951) or rely on people’s conscious awareness of their values
and their ability or willingness to articulate them. This leads to a further problem: a number
of researchers indicate that values often operate implicitly, guiding behaviour effortlessly,
with little or no conscious awareness (Schwartz, 1996; Feather, 1995; Sagiv and Schwartz,
1995). Seeking values-based explanation of behaviours or attitudes may only elicit “truisms”,
which lack cognitive support, and are used as socially or personally acceptable ways of
justifying actions or attitudes (Maio et al., 2001; Maio and Olson, 1998).
10
Having explored the conceptual and practical issues associated with personal values
research, we now turn to values in the leadership and organisational context. In drawing
together the different streams of literature that connect values and leadership, we highlight
two issues in particular and consider their implications for research and practice: (i) Should
values-led leaders enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are
the leadership implications when organisations fail to live up to their values?
Personal values and leadership
The personal values of [top] leaders, and the way in which these are used to shape the
values of the organisation and the behaviour of employees, are common features of a
number of leadership frames of reference, particularly in connection with leadership
influencing processes (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Sosik, 2005; Lord and Brown, 2001; Shamir
et al., 1993). In charismatic leadership, for example, the values invoked by [top] leaders
form part of their compelling vision of the organisation, motivating followers and enhancing
trust, commitment and performance (Conger et al., 2000; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Boal
and Bryson, 1988). Role-modelling values-congruent behaviour is a key facet of leadership
behaviour in this and other leadership frameworks, including ethical and transformational
leadership.
However, in common with the personal values literature, such normative models of
leadership tend to conflate values with other concepts, such as behaviours, virtues and
character traits. This terminological “looseness” and differing levels of abstraction make it
difficult to make systematic comparisons between leaders and between settings. Moreover,
the concomitant, dominant focus on the personal values of top leader figures, rather than
on shared or distributed forms of leadership (Pearce et al., 2011; Yukl, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006;
Gronn, 2002), means that scant attention is given to the potentially competing value
priorities among leaders (and followers) at all levels of the organisation, and to their
implications.
11
The idea of values-led or values-based leadership suggests an association with those
leadership frames of reference which are concerned with acting on personal values and
convictions, such as ethical and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and
Trevino, 2006); or with service to others, wisdom and connection with humanity, such as
servant and spiritual leadership (Karakas, 2010; Liden et al., 2008; Fry, 2003; Spears and
Lawrence, 2002). These typically emphasise leader attributes such as humility, capacity for
self-reflection, integrity and respect for others. For example servant leadership stresses
personal integrity and focuses on forming long-term relationships with employees and
stakeholders outside the organisation, including communities and society as a whole (Liden
et al., 2008). These elements are reflected in Kraemer’s (2011) four principles of “values-
based” leadership, which comprise self-reflection, balance and perspective, true self-
confidence and genuine humility. Similarly, conceptions of authentic leadership (Walumbwa
et al., 2008; Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; May et al., 2003) describe
leaders who act in accord with their values, making balanced and principled decisions rather
than acting for political ends or to conform to others’ expectations (George et al., 2007; Ilies
et al., 2005). Here, the emphasis is on remaining true to one’s self and one’s principles in
order to do what is right.
The literature on values-led forms of leadership tends to focus on the moral and ethical
aspects of behaviour and decision-making, and the - arguably – “good” or ethically desirable
values associated with the self-transcendence dimension of Schwartz’s (1992) model.
However, the focus of this and other CSR research is restricted typically to ethical values
rather than the leader’s personal value system as a whole – that is, the entire spectrum of
values. For example, Crilly et al.’s (2008) survey of middle managers in five multinational
corporations found that self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence),
increased the propensity to engage in socially responsible behaviours. Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) research has linked leader deontological ethical values (i.e. altruism and
universalism) with follower beliefs in the stakeholder view of CSR (Groves and LaRocca,
2011). There is a need to take account of the priorities assigned to the other – often
opposing – value types, and to examine the way in which these priorities operate in
12
leadership contexts. For example, leaders who place a high priority on values associated
with achievement, self-direction and recognition for success, and those who value new
experiences and challenge convention, surely have much to contribute to the organisation
and its stakeholders.
Authenticity and personal values fulfilment
In contrast with the leadership frames of reference described above, Hitlin (2003, p.123)
does not ascribe a moral valence to particular values. He comments that personal values
and identity are linked at the theoretical level through the concept of authenticity – “we feel
authentic when we are acting in accordance with our values”. Harter’s (2002, p.382)
definition of authenticity as acting “in accord with the true self, expressing oneself in ways
that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings” evokes humanistic perspectives of the
self as an innate, unified motivational force seeking fulfilment of potential and self-
actualisation (Maslow, 1970; Rogers, 1961). Kernis’ (2003) influential four component model
of authenticity includes awareness of one’s needs, values and feelings, and action that is in
accord with one’s values, preference and needs. From an individual perspective, then,
thinking in terms of values – and acting “authentically” in accordance with them - enables a
sense of self-esteem and well-being (Kernis and Goldman, 2006) rather than feeling
constrained by externally imposed rules and norms.
In self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1995), behaviours are conceived as varying in
the extent to which they experienced as autonomous and authentic. An essential
proposition of self-determination theory is the psychological desirability of behaviour which
is experienced as intrinsically motivated and in accord with an integrated and coherent self.
Behaviours undertaken to avoid sanction or to gain (extrinsic) reward or recognition are
least conducive to self-actualisation and healthy psychological functioning (Ryan and Deci,
2002). Of course, individuals rarely have complete freedom to choose their activities –
particularly in organisational settings (Gagné and Deci, 2005). However, SDT also
emphasises the importance of the social context (e.g. the organisation) in helping or
hindering the individual’s ability to act with autonomy and self-integrity.
13
We therefore suggest that, in relation to our second question, values-led leaders do indeed
to consider how they can enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work.
Safeguarding the health and safety of employees is of course, at its basic level, a legally
defined obligation for organisations and their leaders. However, the theoretical and
empirical linkages between values fulfilment and psychological well-being suggests a deeper
level of responsibility to engage with employees at the level of their personal value priorities.
Concern for the values of others is highlighted by Kraemer (2011) as characteristic of value-
based leaders. He connects this concern with “balance and perspective”, which, he argues,
is a key principle of values-based leadership. Not only do leaders listen willingly to others’
viewpoints in order to develop well-rounded opinions, but also, Kraemer (ibid.) suggests,
they want to discern the personal values that lay behind their views.
Enabling personal values fulfilment: leadership implications
The foregoing discussion has immediate practical implications for managers in the context
of skills and career development discussions with reportees, but also for organisation-wide
human resource management processes. A starting point is the recognition that no one set
of value priorities is intrinsically any better than others, and the acceptance that, within an
overarching conception of shared organisational values, there is room for different personal
value priorities, reflecting a range of individual aspirations and needs. Of course, taken to
extreme, a desire for power, self-gratification and success at the expense of others is
associated with narcissistic tendencies and the dark side of leadership (Aasland et al., 2008;
Conger, 2007). However, Meglino and Ravlin (1998) point out that the type of values which
support interpersonal co-operation and group cohesion may be at odds with the type of
values required for organisational survival. Similarly, employees with value priorities such as
self-respect, influence, capability, curiosity, creativity and ambition, all of which lie outside
the “ethically desirable” (Fritzsche and Oz, 2007; Mumford et al., 2003) self-transcendence
value dimension (Schwartz, 1992), have much to offer either as “values-led” leaders or
followers.
14
A second specific implication for values-led leaders is the shift in emphasis from measures
that identify performance weaknesses or undesirable behaviour and attitudes, towards
finding out people’s values – not in order to improve them but rather to understand them. If,
as Rohan (2000) suggests, people’s value priorities represent their personal view of best
possible living, then finding ways for employees to fulfil their potential surely involves asking
about what they value and exploring ways in which they can meet their needs and
aspirations at work. In addition, given the close association between values and the self
(Hitlin, 2003), encouraging employees (and leaders) to reflect on their value priorities helps
to develop their capacity for self-reflection and self-awareness. Self-reflection is a key
principle of values-based leadership (Kraemer, 2011) and developing self-awareness or
personal insight is important for authentic leadership development (Gardner et al., 2005, p.
347).
For prospective employees, the possibility of working for an organisation whose values and
working practices align with, or allow fulfilment of, personal values and standards is an
attractive one, promising a sense of mutuality, purpose and identity at work (O'Reilly et al.,
1991). Indeed, individuals are attracted to (and selected by) organisations of the basis of
their fit with its characteristics and culture, including its values (Schneider et al., 1995;
Schneider and Alderfer, 1973). This leads us to consider the relevance of organisational
values to leadership.
Organisational values and leadership
Organisational values are relevant to the values-led leadership arena because of their
ascribed normative influence on employee behaviour, and the leader’s role in this
influencing process. Writers in the “culture-excellence” tradition regard [shared]
organisational values as a powerful lever in the development of a cohesive culture. Peters
and Waterman (1982) specifically refer to values as representing the core of corporate
culture, and they associate such values with corporate success. On the one hand, values
may be regarded simply – and cynically - as normative devices deployed in culture
15
management programmes to focus employee effort in support of organisational success,
measured by stakeholder return. On the other hand, values that are publicly stated and,
crucially, personally enacted by organisational leaders may equally represent a genuine
commitment to “do good” behaviour (Stahl and De Luque, 2014, p. 238) directed at a range
of stakeholders.
According to Schein (1997) the personal values of an organisation’s founder or top leader
are transformed into shared values through collective experience of their effectiveness, and
these may over time be incorporated into shared basic assumptions. The “top-down”
approach to establishing an ethical culture tends to assume that organisational values,
articulated by the top leader, can be shared by all employees in order to produce consistent
responses to ethical issues. However, Pearce (2014) remarks that most leaders overestimate
the degree to which vision and values are truly shared. Based on our own research in a
range of organisations that espouse a “values-led” culture (Lee, 2015), employees identify
more strongly with organisational values where these manifestly align with the top leader’s
own behaviour, and where this leader is charismatic, accessible and seen as an inspirational
role-model. Conversely, where there are multiple layers of hierarchy, and where the
organisation’s values have been imposed or inherited from a parent company, there is a
greater tendency for employees to perceive the top leaders as failing to live up to the values,
leading to cynicism and lack of trust.
Measuring the level of congruence between organisational values and employee values is
central to person-organisation values fit research. (Meyer et al., 2010; Cable and Edwards,
2004; Chatman, 1991, p. 450), which is also used by some researchers as an indication of the
strength of an organisation’s culture (O'Reilly et al., 1991). It is important to be clear about
what type of fit is being measured: perceived (subjective) fit, which is the congruence
between an employee’s values and his or her perception of the organisation’s values; or
actual (objective) fit, which compares the employee’s values with the organisation’s values
as assessed by a subset of its employees (Edwards and Cable, 2009). However, when
personal values surveys are also used to assess perceived organisational values in order to
16
assess fit, we question the relevance of some of these values, e.g. the hedonism and self-
direction value types, to the organisational context. Nevertheless, empirical studies have
established a positive relationship between both types of values fit and organisational
citizenship behaviours, teamwork and [self-reported] tendencies toward ethical behaviour
(Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Kristof, 1996), all of which may be regarded as desirable
responsible leadership outcomes. Yet the issue remains that the stated or “official” values of
the organisation may differ from its actual or enacted values.
Espoused and enacted values and breaches of organisational integrity
An organisation’s stated or espoused values represent its stated commitment to a way of
working and engaging with stakeholders and, in many cases, with wider society. In practice,
the organisation’s espoused values all too often differ from the values implicit in day-to-day
organisational decisions and actions – its enacted values (Rohan, 2000; Argyris, 1990).
Organisations that fail to enact their stated values are likely to undermine the credibility of
the values themselves in the eyes of employees, diminishing their anticipated positive
effects on outcomes such as employee commitment and motivation. Cha and Edmondson’s
(2006) research in an advertising firm found that employees made attributions of hypocrisy
when they perceived the CEO had acted inconsistently with his espoused values, and the
authors suggested that the results of this “negative sensemaking” (ibid., p.73) process were
likely to undermine the positive effects of strong organisational values, which are indicated
by charismatic leadership research.
Consistency between espoused and enacted values perhaps feels desirable because it is
associated with the concept of integrity, which is generally regarded as “a good thing” (Audi
and Murphy, 2006; Koehn, 2005). Indeed, integrity is the value most frequently included in
corporate values statements and is found regularly in company mission statements and
codes of conduct (Audi and Murphy, 2006). We adopt here Palanski and Yammarino’s (2009)
definition of organisational integrity as word-action consistency, which specifically includes
enacting stated values and keeping promises. There is thus a double irony should an
organisation that includes integrity in its formal values statement then fail to live up to its
17
own values. We suggest, therefore, that leaders need to consider the effect on stakeholders
of perceived or actual mismatches between espoused and enacted values – which represent
breaches of integrity and, as such, risk undermining credibility and trust (see Simons et al.,
2007) .
Indeed, our own research (Lee, 2015) has highlighted that tack of organisational integrity
has particular implications for first-line and middle managers, who are intermediaries
between the organisation (personified by its executive leaders) and non-managerial
employees. These managers typically operate with limited autonomy and little influence
over the actions and decisions of senior leaders or the way in which these are
communicated. At the same time, their role involves a form of sense-making for employees,
interpreting seeming inconsistent events to create coherence and meaning (Beck and
Plowman, 2009; Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Weick, 1995). Indeed, Palanski & Yammarino
(2009, p.418) suggest that it is often first-line and middle managers who are responsible for
resolving “cross-level integrity conflicts”, choosing whether to prioritise their own integrity
above defending that of the organisation.
Dealing with breaches of organisational integrity: implications for practice
The practice in many organisations who wish to develop a values-led culture is (a) to try to
make values meaningful to employees by expressing them as behaviours, and (b) to
reinforce them by embedding them in role descriptions and appraisal objectives. However,
placing a strong emphasis on organisational values in this way brings a heightened
awareness of inconsistencies between organisational values and behaviour – particularly in
the actions and decisions of top leaders. In the case of an actual or perceived failure by the
organisation (represented by its leaders) to live up to its values, managers face the
leadership challenge of interpreting and mitigating the situation for their team, while
protecting their own behavioural integrity and dealing with the inconsistency at a personal
level. In our own research (Lee, 2015), we found that some managers, such resolution was
achieved by defending the organisation’s action, accompanied by bolstering rationales, such
as having no choice or fulfilling the obligations of the role. For others, choosing not to
18
defend the organisation’s action, in the pursuit of autonomy and authenticity, effectively
left the breach unrepaired. Either way, the fundamental cause of the breach of integrity
remained unresolved.
It therefore seems crucial for responsible leaders to develop a shared sense of what
organisational values – and values enactment – mean in the context of “real world”
decisions, if they are to sustain organisational integrity in the eyes of stakeholders. In
practice, awareness that their actions are likely to be interpreted in value terms may
encourage senior leaders to frame strategic or tactical decisions in terms of organisational
values. By using this form of “proactive sense-giving” (Cha and Edmondson, 2006, p. 75),
they will help to develop shared meanings and avoid perceived or actual inconsistencies.
Finally, are senior leaders prepared to be challenged when their decisions appear to
compromise organisational values and integrity? If so, facilitating the acceptance and
implementation of those decisions may not constitute the “right” thing for managers to do
in the context of responsible leadership practice. Fostering shared values and enacting
values-aligned behaviour need not, in our view, lead to “moral muteness” (Bird and Waters,
1989) or “organizational silence” (Verhezen, 2010; Morrison and Milliken, 2000); nor to the
dysfunctional outcomes associated with strong or over-cohesive cultures, such as stagnation
and lack of innovation (Kristof, 1996; Morgan, 1986) and groupthink (Janis and Mann, 1977).
It is rather a question of what the organisation values, and which types of behaviours are
encouraged. Thus, organisations might consider how they can develop a culture that
encourages managers to challenge lapses of integrity, and how they can prepare senior
leaders to respond to such challenges.
Conclusion and opportunities for further research
Given the theoretical and practical relevance of personal and organisational values to
leadership, as outlined above, we consider that the broad territory of values-led leadership
presents both “snakes” and “ladders” in relation to leadership practice and research. In this
paper we have highlighted the conceptual and definitional issues that characterise the field
19
of values, and challenged some of the assumptions that are to be found in parts of the
leadership and organisational values literature. In particular, we noted the conflation of
values with concepts such as principles, beliefs, character traits and behaviours, and the
tendency to focus on particular “ethical” value types rather than a more rounded
consideration of personal value systems. Informed by our own research in organisations
with strong, values-based cultures, we also suggested the need to consider the values of
followers as well as [top] leaders; the consequences for organisational integrity of failure to
live up to espoused organisational values; and the implications for leadership development
and practice.
During the course of the paper, our synopsis of the personal and organisational values
literature touched on several areas which merit further clarification, knowledge gathering
and research in the leadership context. Scholarship on values-led leadership would
undoubtedly benefit from greater conceptual rigour in order to distinguish between values
and behaviours or virtues when these elements are discussed. Future research needs to
distinguish between the personal values of leader figures; the personal values of followers;
espoused organisational values; and enacted organisational values, and to avoid the
assumption of “shared” values at these different levels. There is also scope for finding
alternative ways of assessing values priorities, to complement existing, quantitative survey
measures. It seems to us that more qualitative, situationally based techniques have great
potential in bridging the gulf between “abstract” values and real-life experience and
behaviour, and in uncovering the meaning that values hold for individuals, particularly when
they are faced with challenging situations that bring their values into conflict. The
development of shared or distributed and relational leadership models (Pearce et al., 2011;
Yukl, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gronn, 2002), and the emergent interest in more situated,
participatory forms of leadership practice, present an opportunity for research on values
and leadership within these alternative frames of reference. Finally, applying the idea of
personal value systems as a whole, rather than focusing on prescribed or “ethical” values
alone, may enable researchers and practitioners to explore ways in which leaders can
experience and enable personal values fulfilment at work.
20
References
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A. & Einarsen, S. (2008) The Dark Side: Defining Destructive Leadership
Behaviour. e-Organisations & People, 15 (3), 20-28.
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. (2012) What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932-968.
Allport, G. W. (1961) Pattern and growth in personality, New York, Holt.
Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming organizational defenses, Boston, Mass., Allyn and Bacon.
Audi, R. & Murphy, P. E. (2006) The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16 (1), 3-21.
Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315-338.
Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2004) Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4), 523-549.
Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217.
Beck, T. E. & Plowman, D. A. (2009) Experiencing Rare and Unusual Events Richly: The Role of Middle Managers in Animating and Guiding Organizational Interpretation. Organization Science, 20 (5), 909-924.
Bird, F. B. & Waters, J. A. (1989) The Moral Muteness of Managers. California Management Review, 32 (1), 73-88.
Boal, K. B. & Bryson, J. M. (1988) Charismatic leadership: a phenomenological and structural approach. In: Hunt, J. G., Baliga, B. R., Dachler, H. P. & Schriesheim, C. A. (eds.) Emerging leadership vistas: International symposium on leadership and managerial behavior research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2006) Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (6), 595-616.
Cable, D. M. & Edwards, J. R. (2004) Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), 822-834.
Cha, S. E. & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17 (1), 57-78.
Chatman, J. A. (1991) Matching People and Organizations - Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3), 459-484.
21
Conger, J. A. (2007) The dark side of leadership. In: Vecchio, R. P. (ed.) Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. & Menon, S. T. (2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7), 747-767.
Connor, P. E. & Becker, B. W. (1979) Values and the organization: suggestions for research. In: Rokeach, M. (ed.) Understanding human values : Individual and societal. N.Y.: Free Press.
Connor, P. E. & Becker, B. W. (1994) Personal Values and Management: What do we Know and Why don't we Know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (1), 67-73.
Crilly, D., Schneider, S. C. & Zollo, M. (2008) Psychological antecedents to socially responsible behavior. European Management Review, 5 (3), 175-190.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1995) Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In: Kernis, M. H. (ed.) Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York: Plenum Press.
Edwards, J. R. & Cable, D. A. (2009) The Value of Value Congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 654-677.
Erickson, R. J. (1995) The Importance of Authenticity for Self and Society. Symbolic Interaction, 18 (2), 121-144.
Feather, N. T. (1995) Values, Valences, and Choice - the Influence of Values on the Perceived Attractiveness and Choice of Alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (6), 1135-1151.
Feather, N. T. (1996) Values, deservingness and attitudes toward high achievers: Research on tall poppies. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Fritzsche, D. J. & Oz, E. (2007) Personal values' influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75 (4), 335-343.
Fry, L. W. (2003) Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331-362.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R. & Walumbwa, F. (2005) "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 343-372.
22
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M. & Dickens, M. P. (2011) Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (6), 1120-1145.
George, B. (2003) Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N. & Mayer, D. (2007) Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85 (2), 129-138.
Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (4), 423-451.
Groves, K. & LaRocca, M. (2011) An Empirical Study of Leader Ethical Values, Transformational and Transactional Leadership, and Follower Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103 (4), 511-528.
Harter, S. (2002) Authenticity. In: Lopez, S. J. & Snyder, C. R. (eds.) Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hechter, M. (1993) Values Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. In: Hechter, M., Nadel, L. & Michod, R. E. (eds.) The Origin of Values. New York: Aldine.
Higgs, M. & Lichtenstein, S. (2009) An exploration of the relationship between personality and values. European Academy of Management 9th Annual Conference, 11-14 May, Liverpool, UK.
Hind, P., Wilson, A. & Lenssen, G. (2009) Developing leaders for sustainable business. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 9 (1), 7-20.
Hitlin, S. (2003) Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 (2), 118-137.
Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J. A. (2004) Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 359.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P. & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005) Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 373-394.
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment, New York, Free Press.
Kahle, L. R. (1996) Social values and consumer behavior: research from the List of Values. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Karakas, F. (2010) Spirituality and Performance in Organizations: A Literature Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (1), 89-106.
Kernis, M. H. (2003) Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14 (1), 1 - 26.
23
Kernis, M. H. & Goldman, B. M. (2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In: Zanna, M. P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 38. San Diego, CA US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Kluckhorn, C. (1951) Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In: Parsons, T. & Shils, E. A. (eds.) Toward a general theory of action. New York: Harper.
Koehn, D. (2005) Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58 (1-3), 125-136.
Kraemer, H. M. (2011) From values to action: the four principles of values-based leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Kristiansen, C. M. & Hotte, A. M. (1996) Morality and the self: implications for the when and how of value-attitude-behaviour relations. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kristof, A. L. (1996) Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), 1-49.
Lee, S. (2015). Dealing with the tensions and dilemmas of management: a value conflicts perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southampton.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. (2008) Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Lord, R. G. & Brown, D. J. (2001) Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (2), 133-152.
Maio, G. R. & Olson, J. M. (1998) Values as truisms: Evidence and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 294-311.
Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Allen, L. & Bernard, M. M. (2001) Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (2), 104-117.
Maslow, A. H. (1962) Toward a psychology of being, Princeton, N.J.,, Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. H. (1970) Motivation and personality (3rd Edn.), New York: Harper Collins.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D. & Avolio, B. J. (2003) Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32 (3), 247-260.
Meglino, B. M. & Ravlin, E. C. (1998) Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 351-389.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B. & Dukerich, J. M. (1985) The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), 78-102.
24
Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H. & Toplonytsky, L. (2010) Person-organization (culture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 (3), 458-473.
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of organization, Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage.
Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 706-725.
Mumford, M. D., Helton, W. B., Decker, B. P., Connelly, M. S. & Van Doorn, J. R. (2003) Values and Beliefs Related to Ethical Decisions. Teaching Business Ethics, 7 (2), 139-170.
Murray, S. L., Haddock, G. & Zanna, M. P. (1996) On creating value-expressive attitudes: an experimental approach. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991) People and Organizational Culture - a Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516.
Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (2009) Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (3), 405-420.
Pearce, C. L., Elisabeth Hoch, J., Jeppe Jeppesen, H. & Wegge, J. (2011) New Forms of Management: Shared and Distributed Leadership in Organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9 (4), 151-153.
Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L. & Manz, C. C. (2014) Is Shared Leadership the Key to Responsible Leadership? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (3), 275-288.
Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982) In search of excellence: lessons from America's best-run companies, New York, Harper and Row.
Robertson, I. & Callinan, M. (1998) Personality and Work Behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7 (3), 321 - 340.
Rogers, C. R. (1961) On Becoming a Person. A therapist's view of psychotherapy, London, Constable & Co.
Rohan, M. J. (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (3), 255-277.
Rohan, M. J. & Zanna, M. P. (2001) Values and ideologies. In: Tesser, A. & Schwarz, N. (eds.) Blackwell Handbook of social psychology: intraindividual processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Rokeach, M. (1968) Beliefs attitudes and values : A theory of Organization and Change, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
25
Rokeach, M. (1973) The nature of human values, New York, Free Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002) Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (eds.) Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. H. (1995) Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3), 437-448.
Schein, E. H. (1997) Organizational culture and leadership (2nd Edn.), San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. & Alderfer, C. P. (1973) Three Studies of Measures of Need Satisfaction in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 (4), 489-505.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, D. B. (1995) The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 747-773.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996) Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated value systems. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Schwartz, S. H. (2011) Studying Values: Personal Adventure, Future Directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (2), 307-319.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987) Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human-Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 550-562.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O. & Konty, M. (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 663-688.
Shamir, B., House, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1993) The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership - a Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4 (4), 577-594.
Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A. & Parks, J. M. (2007) Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and "trickle down" among Black and non-Black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 650-665.
Sosik, J. J. (2005) The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2), 221-244.
Spears, L. C. & Lawrence, M. (2002) Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century, New York John Wiley & Sons.
26
Stahl, G. K. & De Luque, M. S. (2014) Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: a research synthesis, conceptual framework and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (3), 235-254.
Tetlock, P. E. (1986) A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (4), 819-827.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17 (6), 654-676.
Verhezen, P. (2010) Giving Voice in a Culture of Silence: from a Culture of Compliance to a Culture of Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (2), 187-206.
Verplanken, B. & Holland, R. W. (2002) Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 434-447.
Waldman, D. A. & Galvin, B. M. (2008) Alternative Perspectives of Responsible Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327-341.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. & Peterson, S. J. (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34 (1), 89-126.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks; Calif., Sage.
Williams, R. M. (1979) Change and stability in values and value systems. In: Rokeach, M. (ed.) Understanding human values : Individual and societal. N.Y.: Free Press.
Yukl, G. (2010) Leadership in organizations (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.