An organisation’s culture is strongly influenced by coexisting values. Choosing which values to uphold, especially which combinations of values, has cultural consequences. Michael J Matthews, Jacob M Matthews and Thomas K Kelemen write that two independently neutral or even good values can lead to undesired outcomes when combined. Values react, rather than simply coexist, which is even more important in times of globalisation and hybrid job designs.

The best work cultures and the worst (along with every example in between) emerge from a unique blend of personnel characteristics, responsibilities, and capabilities. External stakeholders like end users, competitors and partners all similarly leave their mark on culture. Internally, an organisation’s culture is strongly influenced by coexisting values. Virtually every organisation contains and promotes multiple values. The United States of America, for example, touts not only “life” but also “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness,” with each of the three values working in tandem. Proudly displayed on the national flag of Brazil are the words “Order and Progress,” representing another value combination.

Similarly, a certain company might pride itself on integrity, agility and diversity, three values identifying what the organisation hopes to embody. But while work values are often examined independently, they exist (and impact) interactively. A manager must consider the positive, neutral or adverse effects of different value combinations.

Recently, we joined with several other scholars to investigate how organisational climates embody values that generate unethical behaviour. A key takeaway from our framework is that two independently neutral or even good values can lead to undesired outcomes when combined. This paradoxical finding stems from the fact that these values “react” rather than simply “coexist.” (Think of chemicals in a lab rather than individually wrapped candies in a bowl). This takeaway is of particular importance to modern leaders as industries continue to trend toward globalisation and hybrid job designs.

Autonomy on a value island

We begin with autonomy, one of the most crucial values managers must learn how to balance. Examined in isolation, this value consistently emerges among the most desired job characteristics, especially among Gen Z workers. Employees are demonstrating an increased willingness to join a company based on the promise of autonomy. Natural observation also indicates they also will leave a company sooner due to a lack of autonomy or stay with a company longer when freedom is present. in the broader research, strong autonomy has been shown to improve both employee and organisational production. On its own, the value of autonomy appeals to any trending organisation and seems a no-brainer for managers to invest in. No value is an island, however, and autonomy reacts differently with various values. Below, we examine value combinations that result in negative, neutral, and positive cultural outcomes, with autonomy as our constant.

Negative symbiosis

Our academic article paired autonomy with aggrandisement, which represents a particularly toxic combination. If these values were alive, we might label negative symbiosis as “parasitic.” But while inanimate, the presence of these two values together quickly leads to poor company culture full of self-serving actions. Autonomy represents the fundamental release of control within a situation, which increases the potential for self-serving actions. Across multiple studies, Lu and colleagues find that when workers experience high job autonomy, this increases their unethical behaviour. The benefits of autonomy, however, begin to erode when combined with aggrandisement. The fundamental issue with allowing these values to coexist boils down to the fact that autonomy removes guardrails, while aggrandizement shifts the end goal to be self-centred. If employees have complete freedom and are motivated to prioritise their own self-interests, the results can be catastrophic.

Neutral symbiosis

Next, we place autonomy with the value of being data driven. Both of these traits are strongly desired by emerging employee generations, and both result in positive organisational impacts when the setting is correct. When together, however, these two values have little impact on each other. A company might believe in both values and toggle their strategic effort and initiatives between the two, but autonomy and a strong emphasis on being data-driven represent a neutral pairing. Data-driven does not increase the benefits of autonomy, nor does autonomy augment the virtue of being data-driven. Although each individual value might be beneficial, the combination produces neither positive nor negative results within the organisational culture–the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. This represents the “hard truth” of many organisational cultures.

Positive symbiosis: mutualism

Finally, we examine the combination of autonomy and accountability. Certain values are best when paired with a complementary value. Each value enhances the positive impact of the other in a symbiosis we refer to as organisational mutualism. Autonomy and accountability are a prime example of this phenomenon. As demonstrated in our first pairing, autonomy without accountability can lead to reckless failure or slothful business practices.

However, when employees are empowered to adopt their own process on the one hand, while expected to be responsible and faithful to the aims of the organisation on the other, employees will thrive. Within this combination, accountability enhances the positive impact of autonomy, and autonomy maximises the potential of accountability. The two support each other, as seen in organisations such as Netflix, which adopts a “no rules rules” mentality while holding employees responsible for the mission of the organisation. Spotify also aspires to this same balance.

To combine or not to combine?

When it comes to crafting organisational culture, leaders would benefit from broad-view value selection. Just as no value exists on an island by itself, no organisation operates in a vacuum. Managers know this and leverage the latest research as they weigh group dynamics while building a team. Accordingly, choosing which values to uphold, and especially which combinations of values, has cultural consequences.

• This blog post is based on The Machiavellian Organization: A Multilevel Model to Understand Decision Making in Organizations, in Group & Organization Management.
• he post represents the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.
• Featured image provided by Shutterstock
• When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our Comment Policy.

Print Friendly