Do company values boil down to money?
22 August 2008
Read by 2314 persons
My thoughts have been stuck on the concept of "values" for a few days.
Fifty years ago, morality was still a common topic of discussion or writing, and the same goes for the word "values," our topic of the day. Currently, in the daily life of modern society, the notion seems to have fallen into disuse, except perhaps in companies where it is highlighted in internal communications, marketing, charters... This use as a management tool is part of a search for corporate identity, corporate philosophy, and a need for motivation (creating bonds, fostering commitment...); one may legitimately wonder if these values are truly those of each member of the group and if they are not a unilateral affirmation of the vision of the leaders, particularly with a view to creating more added value.
Furthermore, aren't all the values highlighted by the companies that have institutionalized them subordinated to an exchange value: money?
Indeed, values are structured in a hierarchical system; thus, one can think that in a crisis situation, only the return to profitability will matter, even if it is done at the expense of other values, hence the question in the title of this article. But perhaps you know of concrete cases of companies that have prioritized other values over money in a crisis situation; feel free to mention them in the comments.
But what is a value?
Today, while browsing the Philosophy section of my usual bookstore, I came across a book published under the direction of Jérôme Bindé by UNESCO-Albin Michel entitled "Where are the values?" What a disappointment to find no attempt at defining the concept.
For Olivier Vassal, in "Crise du sens, défis du management," the concept of values is not suitable for companies, and he prefers the notion of "principle of action." Again, the notion of "values" is not defined. Perhaps it goes without saying?
The Cultural Dictionary in French (Alain Rey) proposes the following meanings:
• This in which a person is worthy of esteem (in terms of qualities in the moral, intellectual, professional field).
• Measurable characteristic (of an object) as capable of being exchanged, of being desired.
• Quality of a thing based on its objective or subjective utility (use value), on the relationship of supply and demand (exchange value), on the amount of work required for production (labor value).
• A title representing a financial right, a claim.
• Characteristic of what meets the recognized standards of its species, its type, which has quality, is objectively worthy of esteem (within a social standard of evaluation).
• Quality estimated by judgment (works of unequal value).
• Quality of what produces the desired effect (the value of an argument).
• Characteristic of what satisfies a determined end (the expressive value of words).
• Characteristic of what is subjectively estimated and posited as objectively estimable.
• What is true, beautiful, good according to a personal judgment, more or less in agreement with that of the society of the time.
To add, here is the definition found on Wikipedia:
A general principle of moral inspiration called upon to guide the actions of individuals in society by setting goals, ideals, in other words, by giving them means of judging their actions. These values are abstract and constitute a coherent hierarchical set called a value system.
Based on this, we can retain that values are a way of judging the actions and attitudes of individuals based on qualities deemed worthy of esteem. The concept of values would therefore be strongly subjective (individual or collective subjectivity, as opposed to a universal/absolute concept). Values are the subject of personal preferences, preferences that may be shared by other individuals, but without overlapping very precise communities. What changes is above all the hierarchy of values and in them the preferences.
My exploration also led me to bring "values" closer to the concept of "norm," which I will develop a little for a better understanding of our theme today.
Norms have multiplied in reality for the needs of exchanges and the harmonization of laws and regulations. They also proliferate in the vocabulary of evaluation and the accompanying performance. The Rey dictionary gives the following meanings:
• Concrete type or abstract formula of what should be, in everything that admits a value judgment; ideal, rule, goal, model depending on the case.
• Set of rules of use, technical prescriptions, relating to the characteristics of a product or a method, in order to standardize and guarantee operating modes, safety and prevent nuisances.
• Way of doing, behaving or thinking, often majority, socially defined and sanctioned, according to a system of implicit (an ideology, values) or explicit references.
A norm is therefore defined by the conventional and collective nature of its elaboration; it is expressed, unlike values, which remain implicit. The norm therefore implies a notion of power; indeed, for a norm to come into force in a society, it must be accepted by the majority or imposed by a power (if values are imposed by a power, for example, a company management, do they remain values or do they become rules, norms?).
A norm is a template, a model for calibrating objects that will be declared conforming or not to it; it is also a statistical concept corresponding to the average type of a population - to the norm in this population. In today's world, norms proliferate: quality, safety, accounting, interoperability of communication systems?
Another characteristic of norms and values is that, unlike propositions, they are neither true nor false since they do not propose to describe something, but to prescribe, to appreciate or to describe (these three traits constitute, in Canto-Sperber's dictionary of ethics and moral philosophy, the three levels of norms).
Beyond these considerations, I would emphasize that certain norms can be justified by values: the norm "wash your hands before eating" is justified by a value of hygiene. Not every norm stems from a value; for example, driving on the right rather than on the left.
Norms and values have in common the positioning of actions and attitudes. The norm proceeds from a binary and exclusive approach: you are within the norm or you are not; it does not necessarily judge an act.
In summary:
The use of the concept of "value" therefore seems to fix what is important for an individual or a group, what the individual (or group) holds above all.
In other words, values guide the actions of individuals (group) by setting ideals and position the actions of individuals by giving them references to judge their actions.
The notion of ideal, evoked here, therefore implies a prior belief.
Beyond the definition: the company
In the specific context of the company, the clarification of definitions leads me to the following questions:
• Is the notion of values relevant for a company?
• What becomes of individual values in the face of company values (assuming a positive answer to the previous question)?
• Are there values specific to the manager?
• What does the use of the notion of values bring to the company?
Is the notion of values relevant for a company?
I think that before answering, we must start from what a company is, that is, according to INSEE, "a legal unit, natural or legal person, which, enjoying autonomy of decision, produces goods and market services," and I would add, recurrently (this definition is not the only one; there are theoretical debates on this subject, but that is not the theme of today). The autonomy of decision mentioned here should not be understood as the ability to self-determine, but as legal autonomy. We can therefore consider that the company does not have its own conscience; it therefore does not require setting an ideal and/or, more simply, judging its actions. These elements can only be the work of the leaders at its head. From this approach, I conclude that the notion of values does not make sense for the company.
If the company cannot have values, what do these "values" highlighted in the company's communications correspond to?
The "values" of the company, not being from the company itself but from its executives, must be formalized and communicated; they therefore have the conventional character of norms. These "values" of the company do not constitute an ideal in themselves for each employee, they do not allow judging the actions/decisions of the company. In fact, what some companies call values would, in my opinion, be more internal norms, institutionalizing best practices (statistical dimension) and/or regulating good attitudes and best practices.
I would nevertheless remain cautious in this assertion because certain values can be truly highlighted: money and respect for the law. It is therefore not because of their simplicity that we should conclude in the absence of all values.
Moreover, in a small test "What are your moral convictions?", I evoked consequentialist and deontological positions. As a reminder, in the consequentialist position, it is the consequences of actions that decide whether they are morally justifiable or not. In the deontological position, non-respect of norms and values makes the act morally indefensible. On this basis, I would tend to conclude that the company is more deontological.
What happens to individual values in the face of company values?
From the moment we consider the "values" of the company as an unnamed normalization, individual values have no right to be cited.
Furthermore, as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, values are subjective and individual above all; they can be shared but do not overlap a very precise community. Each incoming employee has their own values that are not necessarily in line with those of the company; they must therefore put them in second place.
Are there values specific to the manager?
Thus, are the values of man in all his humanity those of the manager? What is a good manager (beyond the definitions of ISO standards)? Certainly not someone showing kindness (if this is the case, it is not the dominant value).
Isn't the value of a good manager evaluated in terms of what he costs and brings in?
Values being a concept of moral inspiration, they tend to be articulated around the antagonistic couple of good and evil.
Moreover, one will easily tend to conclude that this question of good and evil hardly concerns the company; in any case, if it does concern it, it is more in the framework of a logic of communication and therefore of seduction than of a proper conscience.
This lack of concern for good and evil does not necessarily mean the absence of all thought or all values; thus, Chinese philosophy has not considered these two notions on a plane of exclusion; these notions complement each other, or even are necessary to each other. There is no good without evil and vice versa.
What does the use of the notion of values bring to the company?
Moreover, if the concept of values does not seem appropriate and is massively used by a company, shouldn't we see other functionalities than those already mentioned, in particular a cultural control in reference to Foucault (my article on Foucault).
Some points remain unclear to me; I have not yet had the opportunity to properly define other close notions, such as ethics, virtue, morality... My questions and their answers are therefore provisional; I will certainly be led to develop my point of view and perhaps revisit what has been written.
Published on November 26, 2006
Posted online on August 22, 2008
Management Agora
Fifty years ago, morality was still a common topic of discussion or writing, and the same goes for the word "values," our topic of the day. Currently, in the daily life of modern society, the notion seems to have fallen into disuse, except perhaps in companies where it is highlighted in internal communications, marketing, charters... This use as a management tool is part of a search for corporate identity, corporate philosophy, and a need for motivation (creating bonds, fostering commitment...); one may legitimately wonder if these values are truly those of each member of the group and if they are not a unilateral affirmation of the vision of the leaders, particularly with a view to creating more added value.
Furthermore, aren't all the values highlighted by the companies that have institutionalized them subordinated to an exchange value: money?
Indeed, values are structured in a hierarchical system; thus, one can think that in a crisis situation, only the return to profitability will matter, even if it is done at the expense of other values, hence the question in the title of this article. But perhaps you know of concrete cases of companies that have prioritized other values over money in a crisis situation; feel free to mention them in the comments.
But what is a value?
Today, while browsing the Philosophy section of my usual bookstore, I came across a book published under the direction of Jérôme Bindé by UNESCO-Albin Michel entitled "Where are the values?" What a disappointment to find no attempt at defining the concept.
For Olivier Vassal, in "Crise du sens, défis du management," the concept of values is not suitable for companies, and he prefers the notion of "principle of action." Again, the notion of "values" is not defined. Perhaps it goes without saying?
The Cultural Dictionary in French (Alain Rey) proposes the following meanings:
• This in which a person is worthy of esteem (in terms of qualities in the moral, intellectual, professional field).
• Measurable characteristic (of an object) as capable of being exchanged, of being desired.
• Quality of a thing based on its objective or subjective utility (use value), on the relationship of supply and demand (exchange value), on the amount of work required for production (labor value).
• A title representing a financial right, a claim.
• Characteristic of what meets the recognized standards of its species, its type, which has quality, is objectively worthy of esteem (within a social standard of evaluation).
• Quality estimated by judgment (works of unequal value).
• Quality of what produces the desired effect (the value of an argument).
• Characteristic of what satisfies a determined end (the expressive value of words).
• Characteristic of what is subjectively estimated and posited as objectively estimable.
• What is true, beautiful, good according to a personal judgment, more or less in agreement with that of the society of the time.
To add, here is the definition found on Wikipedia:
A general principle of moral inspiration called upon to guide the actions of individuals in society by setting goals, ideals, in other words, by giving them means of judging their actions. These values are abstract and constitute a coherent hierarchical set called a value system.
Based on this, we can retain that values are a way of judging the actions and attitudes of individuals based on qualities deemed worthy of esteem. The concept of values would therefore be strongly subjective (individual or collective subjectivity, as opposed to a universal/absolute concept). Values are the subject of personal preferences, preferences that may be shared by other individuals, but without overlapping very precise communities. What changes is above all the hierarchy of values and in them the preferences.
My exploration also led me to bring "values" closer to the concept of "norm," which I will develop a little for a better understanding of our theme today.
Norms have multiplied in reality for the needs of exchanges and the harmonization of laws and regulations. They also proliferate in the vocabulary of evaluation and the accompanying performance. The Rey dictionary gives the following meanings:
• Concrete type or abstract formula of what should be, in everything that admits a value judgment; ideal, rule, goal, model depending on the case.
• Set of rules of use, technical prescriptions, relating to the characteristics of a product or a method, in order to standardize and guarantee operating modes, safety and prevent nuisances.
• Way of doing, behaving or thinking, often majority, socially defined and sanctioned, according to a system of implicit (an ideology, values) or explicit references.
A norm is therefore defined by the conventional and collective nature of its elaboration; it is expressed, unlike values, which remain implicit. The norm therefore implies a notion of power; indeed, for a norm to come into force in a society, it must be accepted by the majority or imposed by a power (if values are imposed by a power, for example, a company management, do they remain values or do they become rules, norms?).
A norm is a template, a model for calibrating objects that will be declared conforming or not to it; it is also a statistical concept corresponding to the average type of a population - to the norm in this population. In today's world, norms proliferate: quality, safety, accounting, interoperability of communication systems?
Another characteristic of norms and values is that, unlike propositions, they are neither true nor false since they do not propose to describe something, but to prescribe, to appreciate or to describe (these three traits constitute, in Canto-Sperber's dictionary of ethics and moral philosophy, the three levels of norms).
Beyond these considerations, I would emphasize that certain norms can be justified by values: the norm "wash your hands before eating" is justified by a value of hygiene. Not every norm stems from a value; for example, driving on the right rather than on the left.
Norms and values have in common the positioning of actions and attitudes. The norm proceeds from a binary and exclusive approach: you are within the norm or you are not; it does not necessarily judge an act.
In summary:
The use of the concept of "value" therefore seems to fix what is important for an individual or a group, what the individual (or group) holds above all.
In other words, values guide the actions of individuals (group) by setting ideals and position the actions of individuals by giving them references to judge their actions.
The notion of ideal, evoked here, therefore implies a prior belief.
Beyond the definition: the company
In the specific context of the company, the clarification of definitions leads me to the following questions:
• Is the notion of values relevant for a company?
• What becomes of individual values in the face of company values (assuming a positive answer to the previous question)?
• Are there values specific to the manager?
• What does the use of the notion of values bring to the company?
Is the notion of values relevant for a company?
I think that before answering, we must start from what a company is, that is, according to INSEE, "a legal unit, natural or legal person, which, enjoying autonomy of decision, produces goods and market services," and I would add, recurrently (this definition is not the only one; there are theoretical debates on this subject, but that is not the theme of today). The autonomy of decision mentioned here should not be understood as the ability to self-determine, but as legal autonomy. We can therefore consider that the company does not have its own conscience; it therefore does not require setting an ideal and/or, more simply, judging its actions. These elements can only be the work of the leaders at its head. From this approach, I conclude that the notion of values does not make sense for the company.
If the company cannot have values, what do these "values" highlighted in the company's communications correspond to?
The "values" of the company, not being from the company itself but from its executives, must be formalized and communicated; they therefore have the conventional character of norms. These "values" of the company do not constitute an ideal in themselves for each employee, they do not allow judging the actions/decisions of the company. In fact, what some companies call values would, in my opinion, be more internal norms, institutionalizing best practices (statistical dimension) and/or regulating good attitudes and best practices.
I would nevertheless remain cautious in this assertion because certain values can be truly highlighted: money and respect for the law. It is therefore not because of their simplicity that we should conclude in the absence of all values.
Moreover, in a small test "What are your moral convictions?", I evoked consequentialist and deontological positions. As a reminder, in the consequentialist position, it is the consequences of actions that decide whether they are morally justifiable or not. In the deontological position, non-respect of norms and values makes the act morally indefensible. On this basis, I would tend to conclude that the company is more deontological.
What happens to individual values in the face of company values?
From the moment we consider the "values" of the company as an unnamed normalization, individual values have no right to be cited.
Furthermore, as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, values are subjective and individual above all; they can be shared but do not overlap a very precise community. Each incoming employee has their own values that are not necessarily in line with those of the company; they must therefore put them in second place.
Are there values specific to the manager?
Thus, are the values of man in all his humanity those of the manager? What is a good manager (beyond the definitions of ISO standards)? Certainly not someone showing kindness (if this is the case, it is not the dominant value).
Isn't the value of a good manager evaluated in terms of what he costs and brings in?
Values being a concept of moral inspiration, they tend to be articulated around the antagonistic couple of good and evil.
Moreover, one will easily tend to conclude that this question of good and evil hardly concerns the company; in any case, if it does concern it, it is more in the framework of a logic of communication and therefore of seduction than of a proper conscience.
This lack of concern for good and evil does not necessarily mean the absence of all thought or all values; thus, Chinese philosophy has not considered these two notions on a plane of exclusion; these notions complement each other, or even are necessary to each other. There is no good without evil and vice versa.
What does the use of the notion of values bring to the company?
Moreover, if the concept of values does not seem appropriate and is massively used by a company, shouldn't we see other functionalities than those already mentioned, in particular a cultural control in reference to Foucault (my article on Foucault).
Some points remain unclear to me; I have not yet had the opportunity to properly define other close notions, such as ethics, virtue, morality... My questions and their answers are therefore provisional; I will certainly be led to develop my point of view and perhaps revisit what has been written.
Published on November 26, 2006
Posted online on August 22, 2008
Management Agora
