Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The term values is both a center of social and cultural energy, with great significance in the academic and popular arenas, and an inherently ambiguous and contested term. Broadly speaking, “value” is ascribed to particular targets or reference points (such as “the enduring values” of a society), to the activity of valuing something (as in “our company values these things …”), and to increments of assessment (as in “the added value” of a new managerial project). People are conceived, especially by social psychologists such as M. Rokeach and S. Schwartz, as developing preferences for one value over another and then forming intentions and engaging in behaviors that are consistent with their preferred values.

From sociological and anthropological standpoints, values become embedded in a community of shared experience and pursuits, defining that community in terms of worldview and the taken-for-granted, and then setting the stage for individual attitudes and preferences. As Émile Durkheim explained well, the very identity of a community becomes to some degree indistinguishable from its core set of values—values that take on a certain kind of trans-subjective quality over time.

From the standpoint of linguistics, communication, and to some extent philosophy, established or powerfully expressed values become the building blocks of premises on which arguments, decisions, and actions are based. According to Aristotle, values become reliable persuasive resources for any agent operating within a particular community. In management and organizational behavior, values have been closely examined in terms of their roles in work processes and in terms of alignments of orientations, decisions, and other behaviors. All of these senses of values are therefore important in their applications to the context of organizations, work, and society.

Values in Organizational Theory

Because so much human work occurs within the context or service of organizations, the position of “values” in organizational theory merits serious attention. From the beginning of organizational theory in the writings of Max Weber but also in those of Karl Marx and Durkheim, there was a concern about the capacity for organizational systems to retain their originating values. Weber himself was troubled by the tendency of bureaucracies to become distanced from fundamental orientations toward values, especially through the privileging of technique over “substance”—here referring to introspectively and intersubjectively achieved and revisited orientations toward human projects.

That organizations frequently “change course,” departing from one announced value to another, is indisputable. It also is to some degree necessary when there is a sound reason to make a shift in objectives. G. Weaver, L. Treviño, and P. Cochran would argue that value displacement necessarily occurs in an organization, regardless of sector, insofar as continuance and power come to overtake any other allegiances.

For the context of individual work, there are important implications, including notably (1) the linkage or disjuncture between the formal (announced and implemented) values of an employing organization and one's own personal values and (2) efforts by organizations to prescribe or control value orientations of employees. In these and many other cases, significant “values work” is needed, as demonstrated by J. Gehman, L. Treviño, and R. Garud in their study of the evolution of a university policy and individuals’ relations to it.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading