If I'm reading correctly, it is the simlification and codification of values you are against, not the discussion of, noticing of, reflection upon, or just plain talking about our values as we work. Is that correct?

I think there are huge differences between lists of values associated with a mission statement, and the practice of surfacing values when they are in play. For example, talking about transparency is, in action, a practice. So is PRACTICING transparency. Messing up with transparency. Avoiding transparency. We may say "we value transparency."

Transparency itself is not a rule. It can be, however, a platitude! ;-) But by giving language to it as something we 'value', in an active way, can be very useful. Locking it into a platitude - YUCK!

If you want to build a ship,
don't drum up the men to gather wood,
divide the work and give orders.
Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

I fear many of your readers would not understand the relevance of "jelly-bellied flag-flapper" but that chapter of Stalky captures this beautifully.

Ah, points 1, 2 and 3 remind me so much of my days in employeeland. I’ve suffered many hours of brainstorming on values and mission statements.
I’ve even been obliged to run such sessions.

And once, I was given a resulting “corporate values card” - the values printed on a laminated credit card-sized paper for me to keep in my wallet/on my desk to remind me (huh ?). They even debated issuing "the values cards" clipped to a lanyard to wear around our necks but thankfully some sanity prevailed.

Multiple displays of Dilbert cartoons around an office are usually a good indicator of a rules-based organisation – Scott Adams captures them (and the gaming) perfectly. He used to have an automatic Mission Statement Generator (no longer available) on the Dilbert website, which many suspected was used seriously by some managers to generate the right combination of key words. After all, it generated the following fictitious examples, which could easily be found in corporate literature:

"We have committed to synergistically fashion high-quality products so that we may collaboratively provide access to inexpensive leadership skills in order to solve business problems"

"It is our job to continually foster world-class infrastructures as well as to quickly create principle-centered sources to meet our customer's needs"

Having met Dave Logan recently, I’ve been reading the book “Tribal Leadership” ( http://www.triballeadership.net/ )which is research-based and I think touches on the evolution of ideation-based cultures and specifically about the language they use.

In looking at the near obsession with values in some organisations, there’s a danger in basing discussions on a dichotomy – rules-based vs ideation-based. If only life was that simple ! The best managers seem to straddle both, the rest fluctuate somewhere between the two…

Hi - Good post. Both forms imply certain consequences if you stray. Often, it is the implementation and context that determine the function or dysfunction of each. In my experience the consequence of operating outside the ideation form is far more severe than rule-base. However, correction is made with rule-base techniques.

Some of the codewords and phrases are interesting. “It’s just the way we do things,” is perhaps an example of ideation values. “Sally is not a team player,” along with a litany of broken rules, might be a way to describe a violation of rule-based values.

I’ve always found rule-base cultures to be emphatic, e.g., Yes means yes, maybe means no, and no means no. In ideation cultures it is different. Yes means maybe, maybe means yes and no means maybe. Ideation accounts for variation and richness. Rules may account for control and continuity.

Ideation achieve structure and coherence through perpetual and continuous interaction and relationship with the environment. Rule-based is done with compliance.

In organizations there is a pluralism of formal and informal methods, including values. Ideation informs rules. Rules syndicate values. Ideation is sticky and powerful. Rules are slippery and weak. Ideations are bespoke and intrinsic; rules are ready-to-wear and extrinsic.

-j

The following quote is from Don Watson’s book 'Bendable Learning – The Wisdom of Modern Management'…

From around the time of Aristotle to about 1995, philosophers pondered the question of values without understanding that unless they were aligned with business goals, they’ll just fly around the office like so many blowflies. Set aside a couple of days to get them where you want them and allow at least a month for buy-in – then sit back and watch your people. You’ll see it in their eyes first: self-possession, the sense of purpose growing to unstoppable, hyper-Nietzschean zeal. They’ll be on rails, like little locomotives with you brand embossed on all their boilers.

Regular review is essential. You don’t want yourself with a pledge to ‘Act ethically at all times’ when your business goal is a little outside the parameters of that particular box. This is when you realign: ‘Act flexibly at all times’ might be a better alignment in the circumstances; or ‘Try to act ethically’, or ‘Be innovative in all we do’. Of course, you always have the option of keeping the values and dropping the business objectives – but what are you in business for? Your values?'

I've also often wondered how 'aligning personal value to business values' differs from the communist concept of 're-education'

Another quote about values from Don Watson’s book “Bendable Learning – The Wisdom of Modern Management”…

‘Values are… the things you value. Except you money. Or any synonym for money. Values, bless them, are never concrete. If what you value most is lobster thermidor, don’t worry: you don’t have to put it in. The same goes for canoeing with your mistress or World Championship Wrestling. A lot of those things will be filtered out in the team-building exercises.

If you’re not sure what your values are, or indeed if you have any, drill down until you reach the time you were a boy scout. Remember the oath? The stuff about truth and honesty? That’s all you need. Don’t drill any further: you never know what you’ll find. Come to think of it, the safest way to find your values is to get them from someone else’s website. Throw in innovation, diversity and teamwork, align the whole thing with your business goals, and away you go – synergised.’

Hi - Good post and comments. Where I have seen rule-based value statements work is when they are specifically limiting. Like the 4-page US Constitution, where ‘rules’ specifically and radically LIMIT the scope, breadth and reach of govt.

It is important in organizations, and for KM, for example, to create constitutional-style rules that strictly and deliberately limit methods, techniques, processes, standards, technologies and central governance overall. Like a federal constitution, this allows real people, genuine innovation and overall excellence to prosper. Yes, it can be messy and challenging, but it is the only thing that works exceptionally well over the long term.

At HP, easily the Mother of All Ideation Cultures, In the 80s, I helped remediate the ‘HP Way’ with then CEO Lew Platt. From the very beginning, the mission, in fact, was to renew the constitution-style form of guidance. One goal, for example, was to limit the role of exogenous actors in the leadership of the firm.

Of course, as good HPers, we benchmarked our approach with other firms. One aerospace company had values, policies and procedures that literally filled a bookshelf of binders. Wow. In contrast, the HP Way was one, three-fold, glossy brochure.

1. We have trust and respect for individuals.
2. We focus on a high level of achievement and contribution.
3. We conduct our business with uncompromising integrity.
4. We achieve our common objectives through teamwork.
5. We encourage flexibility and innovation.

We felt and reasoned that no more was needed. In fact and in practice what was left out is far more important that what is left in.

In the 90s, HP’s values, the brief and limited HP Way, were soundly derided by the industry. DEC was particularly derisive. IBM was smug. There were a lot of dumb jokes about HP...

Overall, seems to have worked. HP gobbled-up DEC. Today, HP’s revenue well exceeds IBM’s.

-j

Hmmmm....seems like all organizations express "values" in both a rules-based way and an ideation-based way, and that these two approaches are in an ongoing dialog with each other.

How this influenced Cynefin seems clear (rules cohere with Simple/Complicated, ideation coheres with Complex).

This is a bit of a rabbit trail, but I find the etymology of this word intriguing...I don't have an OED, but here's a doctoral thesis entitled "Exploring Usage of the Word 'Values': Implications for Opportunities and Planning" by Anne Maret Varangu.

Varangu (rightly, I think) highlights Nietzsche as a key figure in the relatively recent emergence of this word. Although she does not discuss Kant in depth, my snap reaction is that Kant's understanding of the noumenal laid much of the foundation for our modern understanding and use of "values"...but that's definitely a rabbit trail... :-)

Umm, Cynefin is about bounded applicability and movement between domains. I think values is about initiatives in the complex domain which may over time shift into complicated. Of course declaring values changes values (mostly by creating anti-values) so I think its a mistake to parallel process here.

the recent emergence is really based in Senge, there are connections in terms of approach there to Nietzche but more I would have said to Satre and Heidegger in terms of how meaning is created