Values in organisations: myths, realities, and a better way forward

Values. Every organisation has them, or at least, they claim to. Scroll through most organisational websites - whether corporate, non-profit, or governmental - and you’ll find a neatly packaged set of aspirational words such as integrity, innovation, excellence, collaboration amongst others. These values are often adorned on office walls, inserted into presentations, and promoted by leaders as the ‘guiding principles’ shaping organisational culture.

But do they really?

The illusion of chosen values

Orthodox management theory suggests values can be deliberately selected and changed at will. The idea is seductively simple: if we articulate the right values, we can shape behaviours, align teams, and create a cohesive culture which serves the organisation’s purpose. Values are often framed in idealistic, almost utopian terms, while a ‘strong’ organisational culture is said to be one where values are shared by most if not all employees. Entire industries have sprung up to support this notion, offering tools, workshops, and interventions to develop and embed them.

But values don’t work like that.

As Chris Mowles writes in Rethinking Management – which offers a robust critique of the managerial fixation with values, they emerge socially, through interactions, power struggles, and shared histories.

Trying to impose them from the top-down ignores the lived reality of an organisation, where individuals hold different priorities and have a wide variety of interpretations of the ‘good’ which is shaped by their own experiences, professional identities and personal histories. As a result values are always contested and continuously evolving.

The fiction of a unified culture

Trying to create a homogeneous culture through the ‘alignment’ of values ignores this complexity and often leads to superficial buy-in rather than meaningful engagement.

Take ‘collaboration’, for example. Many organisations list it as a core value, but what does it actually mean in practice? For some, collaboration might mean open communication and teamwork. For others, it might mean something slightly different like consensus-driven decision-making. And for those in high-pressure, target-driven roles, collaboration might feel like an impractical luxury. Simply declaring ‘we value collaboration’ does little to resolve these tensions - it merely papers over them with vague rhetoric.

The problem with idealised values

The problem is that when values are presented this way, they create unrealistic expectations and fail to acknowledge the messiness of organisational life.

In practice, organisations frequently face trade-offs. You might value transparency, but does that mean sharing difficult information even when it could destabilise morale? You might value agility, but does that justify cutting corners? These are real dilemmas that can’t be resolved by simply asserting that a value is important. What’s missing from most values conversations is an honest engagement with the dilemmas and contradictions that organisations navigate daily.

When there is a gap between stated values and lived experiences, people can experience psychological strain. If an organisation preaches ‘work-life balance’ on paper but in practice rewards overwork, employees may struggle with guilt, frustration, or burnout as they attempt to reconcile the contradiction. This dissonance often leads to cynicism and passive resistance.

Suppressing difference stifles innovation

One of Mowles’ most compelling arguments is that the drive to embed shared values often suppresses difference—yet it is precisely through difference that real creativity and innovation emerge.

If everyone in an organisation feels pressured to conform to the same set of values, where does challenge, debate, and fresh thinking come from? Dissenting voices are often the ones that drive progress, yet an overemphasis on shared values can make it harder for people to speak up, challenge assumptions, or propose alternative ways of working – which may come into conflict with a value such as ‘embracing difference’.

Real organisational learning happens when differences are acknowledged and worked through rather than ignored or suppressed. Innovation thrives when people with different perspectives and approaches engage in meaningful dialogue, sometimes uncomfortably so - not from everyone thinking and/or behaving in the same way.

What purpose might values really serve?

Mowles argues that the managerial focus on values often serves as a mechanism for control (more likely to happen now given increased levels of anxiety and uncertainty). If employees internalise organisational values, explicit rules and regulations become less necessary - people will ‘self-regulate’ according to expected norms.

It’s not a huge leap from here to coercion. Edgar Schein, whom Mowles cites, compares certain organisational change programmes to techniques used in ‘brainwashing’. Employees are socialised into new ways of thinking and behaving without critical reflection. The expectation that everyone should align with a prescribed set of values can tip into a soft authoritarianism, where questioning or resisting those values is seen as disloyal.

Values then create a ‘moral order’ dictating which behaviours, emotions, and perspectives are acceptable and which are not. Those who embody the prescribed values are viewed as aligned and competent, while those who challenge or interpret them differently may be positioned as ‘difficult’ and subsequently excluded/scapegoated – in subtle or not so subtle ways, rather than someone who is expressing an organisation-wide dynamic.

Values may also serve as a way to manage anxiety across the organisation. When organisations promote values like ‘collaboration’ or ‘innovation,’ they may actually reflect unspoken fears, such as the fear of internal conflict or stagnation. For instance, articulating values like ‘transparency’ may be an attempt to manage deep-seated anxieties about mistrust and secrecy.

Conversations about values can also allow organisations to avoid confronting more uncomfortable dynamics, such as power struggles, existential uncertainty, or ethical contradictions. The more uncertainty and fragmentation an organisation experiences, the more it may assert ‘shared values’ to create an illusion of unity and stability as a way of masking deeper dysfunction and contradiction. For instance, an organisation that proclaims ‘radical transparency’ may, in reality, operate in deeply opaque and hierarchical ways. Values subsequently has a performative element.

Mowles suggests that the emphasis on values in organisations also has deeper historical and philosophical roots, including connections to religious traditions and the broader human search for meaning. He references thinkers like Joas, James, and Durkheim, who explore how religious belief is grounded in collective ecstasy and transcendence. As Charles Taylor notes, in an increasingly secular age, people still yearn for something greater than themselves. Organisations, in this view, are often positioned as sites of spiritual renewal, places where people seek purpose and belonging. Value-related initiatives attempt to bind employees into a shared vision, in a way that religious groups aim to, but sometimes in a way that can facilitate cult-like dynamics, where deviation or dissent is discouraged.

A better approach to organisational values

If imposing values from the top down doesn’t work, what alternatives exist? A systems psychodynamic perspective, alongside Mowles’ critique, suggests that values should not be treated as static ideals to be enforced but as fluid, evolving constructs that emerge through social interactions and power relationships.

This means:

• Encouraging critical engagement and emotional honesty. Rather than dictating values, organisations can facilitate discussions where employees explore what these values mean in practice, including their tensions, contradictions, and ethical dilemmas.

• Embracing contradiction and diversity. Instead of striving for perfect alignment, organisations can see competing values as a source of strength, fostering adaptive and innovative thinking.

• Recognising the limits of managerial control. Leaders can acknowledge that they do not have full control over how values are interpreted or lived and explore who benefits from dominant narratives.

• Prioritising practice over rhetoric. Rather than fixating on abstract statements, organisations are better off focusing on actual behaviours, relationships, and decision-making processes that shape workplace dynamics.

Final Thoughts

Rather than chasing an idealised, homogeneous culture, leaders would do better to foster an environment where values are debated and shaped collectively. This approach may not produce a tidy narrative that can be articulated on a website—but it offers a more honest and dynamic way of thinking about organisational life.