On the value of corporate values

By Alex Campbell

One aspect of modern corporate personality disorder that I’ve never understood is the obsession with codifying an organisation’s ‘values’.

We’ve all seen the annual reports emblazoned with stock images of multi-ethnic people holding hands alongside headings that say things like “Working together with shared values”.

We’ve all marvelled at the clumsy propaganda that lines the walls of large corporations, blaring nonsense statements such as “Humility with ability”.

We’ve all sat in workshops where the leaders of a business brainstorm its values, inevitably settling on five or six bland, uncontroversial words. “Honesty”. “Passion”. “Creativity”. “Collaboration”. “Courage”.

And we’ve all seen the press releases issued by companies that get themselves into trouble and try to talk their way out of it by reiterating their commitment to values of “integrity” and “respect”.

I have always believed that this pursuit of synthetic organisational ‘values’ is as bizarre as it is pointless.

Here is an example of a corporate value statement that I’ve chosen at random, taken from the website of one of the world’s largest companies:

Our Values

As a company, and as individuals, we value integrity, honesty, openness, personal excellence, constructive self-criticism, continual self-improvement, and mutual respect. We are committed to our customers and partners and have a passion for technology. We take on big challenges, and pride ourselves on seeing them through. We hold ourselves accountable to our customers, shareholders, partners, and employees by honoring our commitments, providing results, and striving for the highest quality.

Can you guess what company this is? I’m sure you can’t. I wouldn’t have been able to either. This ridiculously broad statement could have been from pretty much any company on earth.

Let’s break it down line by line.

Are there any companies or individuals who would really say they’re opposed to “integrity” or “honesty”?

Can we not take it for granted that “openness” and “personal excellence” are expected of corporate citizens?

Of course, this company is “committed to our customers and partners”. That must be reassuring for its customers and its partners.

This company has “a passion for technology”, unlike all those companies that don’t care about technology and still send inter-office correspondence via tubes.

This company takes on “big challenges” - like reading their values statement without falling asleep or wanting to jam an HR person into a stationery cupboard.

This company holds itself “accountable” by “honoring commitments”, “providing results”, and “striving for the highest quality”. In other words, they do their jobs.

All in all, this company’s values statement is a laundry list of meaningless platitudes. I wonder how many employees of this company would even know this values statement exists, or would care, or could possibly remember any part of it if asked?

If you’re interested, the company is Microsoft. I took their values statement verbatim from here: http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx. And I don’t mean to pick on Microsoft, although they’re an easy target. No doubt almost every global company has at some point created an equally bland and vague list of supposed values.

Of course, not all organisations’ values statements are completely meaningless. For contrast, compare Microsoft’s values statement with Google’s famous mantra: “Don’t be evil”. Google’s mantra is a simple, memorable guiding principle that every Googler can use every day when they’re making decisions. It is specific, it is meaningful, and it is three words instead of Microsoft’s seventy-three words.

What’s most interesting about corporate values is how dissonant an organisation’s stated values usually are with its reality. Often a business’s stated values are actually a reflection of its deepest fears and most profound weaknesses.

A business that feels the need to remind everyone that it is “Courageous” is usually deeply conservative.

A business that talks about how it values “Honesty” is usually mired in back-stabbing bureaucracy.

A business that talks about the important of “Excellence” is often profoundly disfunctional.

A business that constantly tells us it is “Customer oriented” usually has a deep and abiding contempt for its customers.

A business that harps on about “Transparency” has many shameful secrets that it wants to keep concealed.

Ultimately, the reality is that actions speak far louder than words. An organisation’s true values are reflected in how it behaves, not what it says.

True values cannot be set in a planning session or communicated on a PowerPoint slide. They cannot be contrived by a committee. And posting them on an intranet or a noticeboard doesn’t make them real.

The only thing that can make corporate values real is behaviour, and in particular the example set by an organisation’s leaders.

So my perhaps naive suggestion would be to forget about bland statements of corporate values and just say, “Let’s all behave like the decent adult human beings that we are, and focus on making great stuff for our customers to buy.”

You know, one of the things that really hurt Apple was after I left John Sculley got a very serious disease. It’s the disease of thinking that a really great idea is 90% of the work. And if you just tell all these other people “here’s this great idea,” then of course they can go off and make it happen.

And the problem with that is that there’s just a tremendous amount of craftsmanship in between a great idea and a great product. And as you evolve that great idea, it changes and grows. It never comes out like it starts because you learn a lot more as you get into the subtleties of it. And you also find there are tremendous tradeoffs that you have to make. There are just certain things you can’t make electrons do. There are certain things you can’t make plastic do. Or glass do. Or factories do. Or robots do.

Designing a product is keeping five thousand things in your brain and fitting them all together in new and different ways to get what you want. And every day you discover something new that is a new problem or a new opportunity to fit these things together a little differently.

Steve Jobs: The parable of the stones - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Tech (via ninakix)
Cite Arrow reblogged from ninakix
This is just a more volatile world. I mean, there really hasn’t been a global businessperson who has thought about Greece for 2500 years. And now it’s like, frigging Greece, you’ve gotta be kidding me! There’s something about the world we live that’s just more volatile, it’s interconnected. Leaders must drive change”, Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric
Further confusion is created by equating strategy with success or with ambition. This was my problem with the Web-services CEO who claimed “Strategy is never quitting until you win.” This sort of mish- mash of pop culture, motivational slogans, and business buzz speak is, unfortunately, increasingly common. It short-circuits real inventiveness and fails to distinguish among different senior-level management tasks and virtues. Strategy cannot be a useful concept if it is a synonym for success. Good strategy, Bad strategy by Richard Rumelt
If you look at the price earnings ratio for technology companies relative to the price earnings ratios for all industrial companies, you take that ratio, PE technology divided by PE industrial, you can plot that ratio over the last 40 years, and it is at the lowest point that it’s ever been. Another priceless quote from this interview with Larry Summers
I have never seen a management consultant’s report in my long life that didn’t end with the following paragraph: “What this situation really needs is more management consulting. Charlie Munger
Twitter traffic has levelled off, Tumblr has appeared on the map, and MySpace is, uh, doing pretty well.
(from this excellent, very detailed article in Fortune)

Twitter traffic has levelled off, Tumblr has appeared on the map, and MySpace is, uh, doing pretty well.

(from this excellent, very detailed article in Fortune)

At the time, Mr. Bloomberg cast aside the warnings of consultants and executives who told him that the magazine was a financial millstone that would cost the company, at best, $25 million a year. ‘Do I look like a guy worried about losing $25 million?’ Mr. Bloomberg asked the naysayers. via Selling Something Other than Ads // NoahBrier.com (via taylordavidson)
Cite Arrow reblogged from taylordavidson
LinkedIn, Zynga, Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, etc. — are already public, just not public on traditional stock exchanges… So, when they go re-public, that is, when they go public on more traditional exchanges, like Nasdaq or the NYSE, that will be the moment at which insiders exit en masse in an unprecedented way. Any professional investor who wanted a taste of this stuff has it, and they will be idiots not to exit when the liquidity improves on more traditional exchanges. Dear Warren: Here are the Overvalued Social Networking Companies - Bloomberg (via jryu)
Cite Arrow reblogged from mikehudack
The most remarkable of these [emerging-market multinationals] is India’s Tata Group, which is active in everything from cars to chemicals and from hotels to steel. Tata is so big that several of its companies are important multinationals in their own right. ‘New multinationals upset the old world order’ - The Economist
The idea behind the Slow Company movement is that instead of trying to be the first or to get the most mindshare or market share of any company in your vertical, you try to make something that people genuinely find useful and are willing to pay for it. And instead of trying to woo celebrities and plastering your name all over SXSW, you make something that people like so much that they tell their friends, and it spreads by word of mouth based on how well made it is and how awesomely it solves problems that people have — real problems, not ones that marketers make up. Lucius Kwok (via jkleske)
Cite Arrow reblogged from jkleske
What stands in the way of the future, most often, is the past. It’s yesterday’s sluggish institutions. Yet, instead of reimagining and rebooting those institutions, we keep reviving and resurrecting them — zombielike — hoping that by bringing them back from the dead, we can keep the status quo humming along for just a little while longer, that we can eke out the last meager, shriveled morsels of returns from seeds laid down during the industrial age. The Capitalist’s Paradox” in Harvard Business Review (as an aside, this is an extremely accurate description what’s happening in the advertising industry)
Thrift is the core of IKEA’s corporate culture. Mr Ohlsson traces it back to the company’s origins in Smaland, a poor region in southern Sweden whose inhabitants, he says, are “stubborn, cost-conscious and ingenious at making a living with very little”. Ever since Ingvar Kamprad founded IKEA in 1943, the company has tried to allow “people with limited means to furnish their houses like rich people”. The secret of IKEA’s success” in The Economist
The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren’t taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we’re going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem. From Nokia CEO Stephen Elop’s “burning platform” memo. Gives you some insight into how tough it is to compete with Apple and Google.