Article_Christo Nel_Values Shift_with Assessment Process

7/27/2019 Article_Christo Nel_Values Shift_with Assessment Process

1/42

The Values Shift

Christo Nel

Our ancient Roman virtues are virtues no longer

Lester Thurow

The New Economy represents a historic

values shift as profound as the

transformation of societies and worldviews

between 1850 and 1980.

The Old and New Economies are not value free

No facet of human life is value-free. Even the most quantitative of the so-called

hard sciences is predicated upon a set of values that in turn is based upon a

particular worldview that we tend to take for granted. As Fritjof Capra points out in

The Web of Lifei, Values are not peripheral to science and technology but constitute

their very driving force and basis.. In reality, scientific facts emerge out of an entireconstellation of human perceptions, values, and actions in one word, out of a

paradigm from which they cannot be separated.

This is particularly true for the challenge of transforming an organisation from the

Old to the New Economy. As we show later, every facet of leadership practices and

organisational life is an extension of deeper underlying values. In fact it goes even

deeper.

The macro context of the Values Shift

Since the 1960s there has been a steady emergence of thinking which questions

the traditional thinking and conventional wisdom which still dominates the debate on

economic worldviews, policy and practice. The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of

the USSR and East European centrist socialistic states for a while gave rise to the

belief that communism has lost and capitalism has won. The events since the

end of the 1990s have proved this claim to be nave and very short sighted. The

spectacular burst of the Dot Com bubble; the implosion of Enron and Worldcom,

and several similar large corporate failures throughout the last two decades; the sub-

prime crisis which plummeted the world and specifically the USA and Europe into


2/42

deep financial crisis in 2008 and which still continues to create havoc with national

economies; and the ongoing growth of inequality between the haves and the have

nots in most countries points to deep flaws in the current system of capitalism.

Slowly the realisation is growing that capitalism did not win; communism simply

lost first.

One of the great business thinkers of the 20 th Century, Peter Drucker noted,

Every few hundred years in (Western) history there occurs a sharp transformation.

Within a few short decades, society its world view, its basic values, its social and

political structures, its arts, its key institutions rearranges itself. And the people

born then cannot even imagine a world in which their grandparents lived and into

which their own parents were born. We are currently living though such a

transformation. (The Post-capitalist Society, 1993.)

The sentiments and beliefs associated with the necessity to drive a fundamental

Values Shift is not an anti-business, anti-free enterprise, or anti-profit belief system.

To contrary research proves that organisations in both the private and public sectors

that make this shift significantly outperform those that are still wedded to the

increasingly antiquated beliefs of dominance and subservience.

Three important projects provide a growing international debate about the role of

business in society and what is required for private sector business and

organisations in general to become meaningful contributors to the larger good ofsociety as a whole. The underlying emergent belief is that business cannot operate

merely to serve its own interests because it has become arguably the single most

influential force in modern history. It is one of the most powerful shapers of the

values of society; it remains that largest creator and distributor of wealth; it creates

jobs that provide meaning to peoples lives; and it contributes to placing increasing

pressure on the worlds environment and ecosystems.

These three sets of principles and challenges cut the heart of the leadership

challenges facing organisations in the 21st

Century. Conversely, increasing evidenceindicates that if this historic shift cannot be made it may significantly erode the

sustainability of social and economic systems at every level of society. Together

these three initiatives provide the macro context within which governments and

business need to review and transform their existing approaches to capitalism and

the role of business in society. This cannot be done without the active development

and application of new approaches to leadership at personal, interpersonal,

organisational and societal levels.


3/42

1. Millennium Development Goals

The MDGs were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations

Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000. There are eight goals with 21

targets, and a series of measurable indicators for each target.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Global_Compact)

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1A: Halve the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day

o Proportion of population below $1 per day (PPP values)

o Poverty gap ratio [incidence x depth of poverty]

o Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

Target 1B: Achieve Decent Employment for Women, Men, and Young

People

o GDP Growth per Employed Person

o Employment Rate

o Proportion of employed population below $1 per day (PPP values)

o Proportion of family-based workers in employed population

Target 1C: Halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

o Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age

o Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy

consumption[6]

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 2A: By 2015, all children can complete a full course of primary

schooling, girls and boys

o Enrolment in primary education

o Completion of primary education

o Literacy of 15-24 year olds, female and male[7]

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Target 3A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary

education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015

o Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education

o Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector

o Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Millennium_Declarationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Millennium_Declarationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Global_Compacthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Millennium_Declarationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Millennium_Declarationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Global_Compacthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-7


4/42


5/42

o Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are treated with

appropriate anti-malarial drugs

o Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis

o Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under DOTS

(Directly Observed Treatment Short Course)[11]

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Target 7A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into

country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental

resources

Target 7B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant

reduction in the rate of loss

o Proportion of land area covered by foresto CO2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP)

o Consumption ofozone-depleting substances

o Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits

o Proportion of total water resources used

o Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected

o Proportion ofspecies threatenedwith extinction

Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable

access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (for more informationsee the entry on water supply)

o Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water

source, urban and rural

o Proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation

Target 7D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the

lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers

o Proportion of urban population living in slums[12]

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Target 8A: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-

discriminatory trading and financial system

o Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty

reduction both nationally and internationally

Target 8B: Address the Special Needs of the Least Developed Countries

(LDC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_emissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_emissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_emissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-depleting_substancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatened_specieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_water_sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_water_sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_emissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-depleting_substancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatened_specieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_water_sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_water_sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction


6/42

o Includes: tariff and quota free access for LDC exports; enhanced

programme ofdebt relief for HIPC and cancellation of official bilateral

debt; and more generous ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) for

countries committed to poverty reduction

Target 8C: Address the special needs of landlocked developing

countries and small island developing States

o Through the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of

Small Island Developing Statesand the outcome of the twenty-second

special session of the General Assembly

Target 8D: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing

countries through national and international measures in order to make

debt sustainable in the long term

Indicators

Some of the indicators listed below are monitored separately for the least developed

countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked developing countries and small island

developing States.

Official development assistance (ODA)

o Net ODA, total and to LDCs, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors GNI

o Proportion of total sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basicsocial services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe

water and sanitation)

o Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied

o ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their GNIs

o ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their

GNIs

Market access

o

Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excludingarms) from developing countries and from LDCs, admitted free of duty

o Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural

products and textiles and clothing from developing countries

o Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as percentage of

their GDP

o Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity

Debt sustainability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_reliefhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Island_Developing_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Island_Developing_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicatorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_reliefhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Island_Developing_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator


7/42

o Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points

and number that have reached their HIPC completion points

(cumulative)

o Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative, US$

o Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services

Target 8E: In co-operation with pharmaceutical companies, provide

access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries

o Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a

sustainable basis

Target 8F: In co-operation with the private sector, make available the

benefits of new technologies, especially information and

communications

o Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 populationo Personal computers in use per 100 population

o Internet users per 100 Population

2. United Nations Global Compact for Business

Human Rights

Businesses should:

Principle 1: Support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed

human rights; and

Principle 2: Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour Standards

Businesses should uphold:

Principle 3: the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the

right to collective bargaining;

Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

Principle 5: the effective abolition ofchild labour; and

Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.

Environment

Businesses should:

Principle 7: support a precautionary approachto environmental challenges;

Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote environmental responsibility; and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_collective_bargaininghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_labourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_approachhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_approachhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_collective_bargaininghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_labourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_approach


8/42

Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally

friendly technologies.

Anti-Corruption

Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms,

including extortion and bribery.

3. Management shooting for the moon

Gary Hamel and some of the worlds greatest thinkers on leadership, management

and business got together at the end of 2008 to review the role of leadership and

business. In his ensuing article (Moonshots for Management, Harvard Business

Review, February 2009) Hamel summarises their findings. He makes a call for the

abandonment of management 1.0 and the radical design of how we view

leadership and organisations. He and his colleagues identify 25 objectives to design

and execute management 2.0 which is now so critical for sustainable organisational

activity:

1. Ensure that managements work serves a higher purpose. Management, both

in theory and practice, must orient itself to the achievement of noble, socially

significant goals.

2. Fully embed the ideas of community and citizenship in management

systems. Theres a need for processes and practices that reflect the

interdependence of all stakeholder groups.

3. Reconstruct managements philosophical foundations. To build organizations

that are more than merely efficient, we will need to draw lessons from such fields as

biology, markets, democracies, and theology.

4. Eliminate the pathologies of formal hierarchy. There are advantages to natural

hierarchies, where power flows up from the bottom and leaders emerge instead of

being appointed.5. Reduce fear and increase trust. Mistrust and fear are toxic to innovation and

engagement and must be wrung out of tomorrows management systems.

6. Reinvent the means of control. To transcend the discipline-versus-freedom

trade-off, control systems will have to encourage control from within, rather than

constraints from without.

7. Redefine the work of leadership. The notion of the leader as a heroic decision

maker is untenable. Leaders must be recast as social-systems architects who work

to enable innovation and collaboration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briberyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briberyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery


9/42

8. Expand and exploit diversity. We must create a management system that

values diversity, disagreement, and divergence as much as conformance,

consensus, and cohesion.

9. Reinvent strategy making as an emergent process. In a turbulent world,

strategy making must reflect the biological principles of variety, selection, and

retention.

10. De-structure and disaggregate the organization. To become more adaptable

and innovative, large entities must be disaggregated into smaller, more malleable

units.

11. Dramatically reduce the pull of the past. Existing management systems often

mindlessly reinforce the status quo. In the future, they must facilitate innovation and

change.

12. Share the work of setting direction. To engender commitment, theresponsibility for goal setting must be distributed in a process where share of voice is

a function of insight, not power.

13. Develop holistic performance measures. Existing performance metrics must

be recast because they give inadequate attention to the critical human capabilities

that drive success in the creative economy.

14. Stretch executives timeframes and perspectives. Discover alternatives to

compensation and reward systems that encourage managers to sacrifice long-term

goals for short-term gains.15. Create a democracy of information. Companies need holographic information

systems that equip every employee to act in the interests of the entire enterprise.

16. Empower renegades and disarm reactionaries. Management systems must

give more power to employees who have their emotional equity invested in the future

rather than in the past.

17. Expand the scope of employee autonomy. Management systems must be

redesigned to facilitate grassroots initiatives and local experimentation.

18. Create internal markets for ideas, talent, and resources. Markets are better

than hierarchies are at allocating resources, and companies resource allocation

processes need to reflect this fact.

19. Depoliticize decision making. Decision-processes must be free of positional

biases and exploit the collective wisdom of the entire organization.

20. Better optimize trade-offs. Management systems tend to force either-or

choices. Whats needed are hybrid systems that subtly optimize key trade-offs.

21. Further unleash human imagination. Much is known about what engenders

human creativity. This knowledge must be better applied in the design of

management systems.


10/42

22. Enable communities of passion. To maximize employee engagement,

management systems must facilitate the formation of communities of passion.

23. Retool management for an open world. Value-creating networks often

transcend the firms boundaries and can render traditional power-based

management tools ineffective. New management tools are needed to build complex

ecosystems.

24. Humanize the language and practice of business. Tomorrows management

systems must give as much credence to timeless human ideals such as beauty,

justice and community as they do to the traditional goals of efficiency, advantage,

and profit.

25. Retrain managerial minds. Managers traditional deductive and analytical skills

must be complemented by conceptual and systems-thinking skills.

These moon shots for management focus much more on the leadership andorganisational cultures and encourage a major reengineering of how we view and

manage organisations in future. These ideals need to be translated into day-to-day

workplace and leadership practices that can be felt and experienced by employees

and management as a natural order of how things get done.

Creating a fundamental shift in values is a primary leadership

challenge

The revolution from the Old to the New Economy is above all else a

transformation of values. It signifies a powerful, if slow, shift from one large system of

values to another that are to all intents mutually exclusive. One of the reasons that

so many attempts at creating a transformation of organisational leadership and

culture is because leaders underestimate what it takes to shift the behaviours that

demonstrate a true transformation of values. Weve encountered numerous

instances where the executive team have participated in a workshop where they

brainstormed the new values for the organisation. These then get published in the

company news letter, sometimes captured in glossy brochures, and even put up as

posters all over the organisation. Thats as far as it if often goes.

Peter Senge, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and

Chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning - a global community of

corporations, researchers, and consultants - is dedicated to the interdependent

development of people and the institutions in which they work. He is also the author

ofThe Fifth Disciplineii, wherein he claims that the single most powerful leadership

intervention that can be undertaken is to alter the values of an organisation or

community.


11/42

Many leaders underestimate this primary task. As a consequence they often fail to

recognise the extent to which existing organisational and leadership practices

reinforce Old Economy values, even while they may be sincere in wanting to make a

meaningful and lasting impact.

This shift can be illustrated as follows:

The Values Shift

Coercion Co-Option Co-Determination Co-Creation

Power over

Leading servants

Dictate

Privilege

Demand

Power to

Aristocracy

Control

Patronage

Exploit/Entitlement

Power through

Democracy

Guide

Contribution

Productivity andQuality

Power By, For, With

Servant leadership

Unleash Energy

Partnership incontinuousimprovement

Domination & Subordination

Power implies inequalityPrejudiceExclusive privilegeSubordinationDesperationFear

Values-based Leadership

Power is a fluid conversationStakeholdershipInclusive progressParticipationMotivationAspiration

Values are expressed through behaviour

Values are not nice sounding statements aimed at enhancing the public relations

image of an organisation. They are rooted in the real time behaviours and practices

of the organisation, its people and leaders. So, if an organisation provides

misleading information to customers, or pays out huge bonuses to senior managers

while they fail to provide cost efficient services to customers, it tells us that their true

values are to exploit customers for as long as possible regardless of what may be

stated in chairmans reports or on fancy posters. If an organisations leaders claim

that they are committed to creating and attracting talent, yet slash the training and

development budgets as a first port of call when there is a squeeze on costs and at

the same time make no move to adjust executive bonuses the message is clear:


12/42

our values are that executive bonuses in the short term are more important that the

development of people for the long term.

If leaders want to issue fine sounding statements, but lack the stamina and will to

accompany this with much deeper transformation of behaviours, it is better to do

nothing at all. Publishing a setoff values without altering behaviour to demonstrate

true commitment creates cynicism.

Christo and a colleague, Aitken Ramudzuli, were working with a

manufacturing client near Johannesburg. During their initial interview with the

CEO and his team they explored the extent to which the leaders and

organisation had developed a set of shared values. The executive team was

quite adamant that this was in place. In fact they quite proudly pointed to the

framed copy of the values that hung in the Board room.A while later Christo and Aitken were conducting focus groups with some

of the production workers. Aitken asked them about the values, but it was

clear there was no real understanding of what he was talking about. Aitken

pointed to the poster containing the values that was stuck against one of the

walls of the canteen and asked what they thought of it.

Oh that, replied one of them, Im not sure but its probably got something

to do with the new disciplinary code. We saw the HR man put it up the other

day

Such experiences have taught us to never accept how well values are being lived

without exploring the extent to which people across all levels share a deep and

common understanding of what it means in practice. More important, we want to

know the extent to which and how such values are being lived by people regardless

of position.

Living values is a non-negotiable performance requirement

Values statements without aligned behaviours are worthless. And valuesstatements without processes to identify and forthrightly addressing non-

conformance to those values are equally meaningless.

Jack Welch, the celebrated business leader and past CEO of General Electric,

takes values extremely seriously. He believes that peoples underlying values should

be a primary determinant in their selection, retention and development within an

organisation. He defined four value-driven types in one of his CEO reports:


13/42

People who deliver high performance and live the organisations values.

These are the jewels of the organisation and need to be retained because

they hold the future in their hands.

People who live the values but do not deliver high performance.

They should be treated with tolerance and given the opportunity to improve

their performance because it is much easier to improve performance than to

change values.

People who do not perform and who do not live the values.

They may require counselling, but if there is not rapid improvement across

values and performance, they need to leave the company.

People who deliver exceptional performance, but do not live the values. Such

people, says Welch, must be treated with minimal tolerance. They must be

given a short time to demonstrate their capacity to live the values, and if theyfail they must depart.

Welch made it clear that it was not acceptable to tolerate high performance when

the individual was clearly not living the values. The moment leaders and an

organisation allow this they are essentially saying, The ends justify the means. It

doesnt matter what and how you do things, as long as you deliver good results.

This will steadily erode the moral fibre of the organisation.

It is simply not possible to embark upon the development of a high performanceorganisation based on New Economy Leadership without also consciously

entrenching the values shift that must accompany this. Conversely, it is not wise to

make fine sounding statements about commitment to a new value system if it is not

accompanied by equally firm transformation of organisational and leadership

practices.

Four Waves of Values

There are four clearly discernable waves of values that are present in varying

degrees all of the time. Broadly these can be defined as follows:

1st Wave driven by Coercion

2nd Wave driven by Co-option

3rd Wave driven by Collaboration

4th Wave driven by Co-creation

3rd& 4th Wave Values in Action:


14/42

For instance, if faced with conflicting interests and perspectives, people who base

their choices and deeds predominantly on the 3rd and 4th waves will be inclined to act

in the following manner:

Identify people with vested interests in the situation even and especially if their

views are in conflict with ones own.

Contribute to getting the diverse people together so that they can openly and

forthrightly present their views and declare their interests.

Act in ways that recognise that all of the perspectives contain some validity and

need to be explored.

Specific opportunity will be created for people to raise dissenting views and to

explore these.

The prevailing atmosphere will be one of respect and valuing the diversity of

participants. No matter how much one person or group believes that their perspective is most

appropriate, they will not fall into the trap of sustained advocacy of their position.

Instead, they will take at least as much time with inquiry to develop a deeper

understanding and appreciation of the other perspectives.

There will be a sense of abundance about sharing information and a willingness

to also learn from one another.

The people participating in this process will generally share a deep conviction

that even though this process may feel slow and tedious, it will in the end deliverfaster and more lasting results.

It is clear that individuals have the courage to state their views because they

know that it is expected of them, and that even they are ultimately wrong it will

not be held against them.

Generally this group will adopt and attitude of When I feel a desire to reject what

you are saying, Ill first assume that perhaps Im not really understanding it yet

and so I will first endeavour to comprehend what you are really trying to say.

The people participating in this process will clearly have mastered what Jim

Collins calls The Genius of the AND (Good to Great.)

1st & 2ndWave Values in Action:

The people who base their choices and deeds predominantly on the 1 st and 2nd

waves will have a much different approach. It will look more like this:

Before getting together different parties will be inclined to take an early position

on what they want to get out of the interaction.


15/42

Without getting together, the conflicting parties will spend time strategising how

they are going to outwit their opponents.

In particular, they will spend quite a bit of time determining and agreeing what

information they will divulge, and what they will keep secret or try to hide from the

others.

During the first interaction, if it does indeed occur, the various parties will rapidly

move to take up positions. They will enter into a bartering process of exchanging

one gain for another.

The atmosphere will generally be one of suspicion, cautiousness and wondering

where one stands with the other side.

A few people often dominate discussions, with many keeping quiet. This is either

because they feel that their views will not be explored in any event, or if what they

say is unpopular it could amount to a career limiting move. There is a sense in the room of I thought you were going to hit me, so I hit you

back first!

These people will, in terms of Jim Collins, remain entrapped in the Tyranny of

the OR.

The key issue is to determine the values centre of gravity which guides the

behaviours of individuals, teams, organisations and entire societies. Another way of

looking at it is to determine the extent to which the third and fourth waves are

generally subservient to the first and second. And, when the situation demands 1st

and 2nd wave responses, these responses are still carried out in ways that do not

undermine or ignore the 3rd and 4th waves of values.

On September 11 2001, the Twin Towers in New York were destroyed in

one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in history. Few people could deny that

this invited a response from the USA government that fell firmly into the 1st

and 2nd waves of values. Under the leadership of George W Bush, the USA

embarked upon a War against terror.

Even in the early days of the American response it became clear that they

were not going to adhere to the requirements of the 3 rd and 4th waves of

values. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the trauma that they have

experienced, there was still the choice whether they would follow a route of

optimum Co-determination and Co-creation. The tragic unfolding of the war in

Iraq by 2006, the selective suspension of basic civil liberties by the USA

Government, the lengthy detention without trial of suspects, and the rejection

of cooperating with internationally respected institutions and governments, all


16/42

set the scene for an extended conflict caught in the whirlpool of Old Economy

values.

Both Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush had become entrapped in the

fundamentalism and mutual mistrust and desire to kill one another. In

essence they are trapped and participants in 1st and 2ndwave values.

There is no simplistic or absolute cut off point between Old and New Economy

values. Instead it represents a spectrum of world views and values that represent

everything from harsh autocracy and control to open system engagement and

integration of interests.

The post-Apartheid South African experience has in many ways been the

exact opposite. If the new government, under the leadership of the ANC(African National Congress) had opted to remain embroiled in Old Economy

values, then the atrocities of Apartheid may well have led to Nuremburg type

trials for crimes against humanity. Instead, under the leadership of people

such as Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, everyone opted for

a different approach. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than

through the extensive Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The atrocities that people committed were generally driven by 1 st and 2nd

wave values. Yet, in dealing with these deeds, the new post-Apartheid societychose to approach it from 3rd and 4th wave perspectives. Not everyone was

absolved of guilt. Some people were jailed. In that sense the harsher

punishment of typical 1st and 2nd wave values were still applied. But, it was

done from a perspective of inclusivity, transparency, acknowledgement of the

interrelatedness of society, and the need to act in ways that would benefit

generations to come.

It would be nave to believe that the 1st and 2nd waves of values can or should ever

be totally eradicated. The forcefulness and even aggression that is associated with

the first two waves are often required in times of extreme crisis or threat. They are

also probably the source of the requisite arrogance that individuals require to believe

that they are capable of coping with the often anxiety provoking complexities of life

and organisational competitiveness. The inclination of an individual, team,

organisation or even entire society will be to respond in terms of a spectrum of

values that encompass all four waves. The systems values profile will have a

profound impact on how it approaches the exact same situation.


17/42

When we start to work with organisations, one of the first things we try to do is to

determine what their real as opposed to espoused value system is. In practice this

may be as simple as spending some time discussing what a few typical leadership

and organisational behaviours look like on a daily basis. We then invite members of

the organisation, or even an individual who may be involved in personal leadership

coaching, to allocate 100 points across the four waves of values.

In the example above, we define how typical 3 rd and 4th wave people respond to

exactly the same situation compared to typical 1 st and 2nd wave people. System B

illustrates the values profile for 3 rd and 4th Wave Values, and System B for the often

still more dominant 1st and 2nd Wave Values.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Coercive

Dependence

Co-Optive

Co-Dependence

Collaboration

Independence

Co-Creative

Interdependence

Old Economy New Economy

Status of the Organisation:

System BSystem A

As you read through this section on values, ask yourself to what extent your own

behaviours are demonstrating 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4 th wave practices and worldviews. Also

take time to determine your teams or organisations values profile by allocating 100

points across the four waves.

Each of the waves of values form an intricate web of attitudes, relationships,

beliefs and behaviours. Three integrated elements of each value system become

deeply entrenched through generations of subtle and overt cultural development.

The three elements are:


18/42

Primary Intent: The deeper underlying intent of behaviours and leadership

styles, and the conscious or unconscious impact of the values.

Secondary Affect and Application: The ways in which the value system is

generally played out, and the imperative to sustain it.

Relational Impact: The impact it has on relationships and how it shapes the

interaction and relationships between individuals and groups.

Old Economy New Economy

Primary

Intent

Coercion Cooption Collaboration Co-creation

Secondary

Affect and

Application

Violence and

Demand

Money and

Control

Knowledge

and Participation

Ecology,

Community and

Imagination

Overt or

Sublimated

Ownership

and Patronage

Information

and Self Insight

Environment and

7th Generation

Relational

Impact

Dependence Co-

dependence

Independence &

Interdependence

Integration

Studies indicate that it is essential for the vast majority of people to learn what is

acceptable and not condoned within their cultural environment early on in life toensure both acceptance by the larger system and therefore survival. Johnson

concludes that we spend the first half of our lives learning how to cope with and

respond to the cultures we live in; and the second part recovering from it!

This is one of the reasons why changing an organisations value system is so

incredibly difficult. From an early age we are expected to comply with a specific

value system. Our family upbringing, schooling, social life, religions, university life,

work life all tend to reinforce meta-value systems. Compliance to the system

reinforces social acceptance. Contravening the system brings with it censure.To add to the difficulty, adversaries within a system of values will share those

values even if they claim to detest them. For example, management and organised

labour may be stuck in the 2nd wave of cooption and co-dependence. As a result they

will remain embroiled in low intensity conflict that sometimes erupts through strikes

or large scale dismissals. But, at least both parties understand how to interact with

one another within this system. What they dont know is how to operate within a 3 rd

and 4th wave value system! So, they will both tend to remain embroiled within the

territory they know and have learnt to cope with.


19/42

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine is a tragic

example. Both parties are locked into 1st and 2nd wave value systems. They

consistently want to prove that the ongoing violence is the other sides fault. Both

claim the moral high ground. Both claim it is always the other side that first breaks

agreements. Both claim to have primary historic claims. And both would appear to be

willing to rather die fighting than break out of the comfort of combat that their shared

value systems have locked them into.

For this reason, as we discuss in greater detail in the chapter on Stakeholder

Value, any attempt to engineer a lasting shift in values has to be approached with

deep thought and undiluted commitment to acting in ways that are generally totally

different to the present.

New Economy Leadership and creating a high performance organisation that

drives sustainable competitiveness is about making this shift. The seven elements oforganisational transformation that we discuss in this book define the foundation

stones for making this shift. But, it is not for the faint hearted. It is, after all, the single

most profound leadership undertaking any person or organisation can embark upon.

Everyone in the organisation, but specifically people in senior leadership positions

need to develop a clear understanding of what acceptable and unacceptable values

look like in practice. Senior leaders have the added accountability of consistently

maintaining the tension between what is desired and what is unacceptable. They can

only do this if they have developed a vivid mental image of various waves of valuesso that they can quickly identify when behaviours are aligned to an unacceptable

value system and to address it, and to clearly articulate what the desired behaviours

and values look like in practice. This provides the foundation for enabling the

organisation as a whole to become active participants in entrenching the desired

values through day-to-day living. It also enables everyone to take personal charge of

flagging and addressing behaviours when they do not live the desired values.

SAB Ltd, South Africas dominant beer brewer and part of the global

SabMiller group that has grown from a largely domestic South African brewer

in the early 1990s to the second largest brewer in the world within 15 years. It

is widely recognised as one of the worlds most effective and sustainably

competitive organisations. In the early 1990s they embarked upon an

enterprise-wide world class manufacturing and integrated management

practices intervention. This included involving virtually their entire workforce in

developing a set of shared values. It culminated in a small pocket book that

contained the values, with each one defined in terms of critical behaviours


20/42

through which to live the values. Literally thousands of people had

participated as peers in this process.

The values come alive: A few months after enterprise-wide discussion

groups had taken place for people to develop a shared understanding of what

it meant to live the values, a wonderful example occurred. A production

foreman instructed a forklift driver to load a pallet of beer onto a truck. The

driver pointed out that the labels on the bottles were not pasted on properly

and this did not meet quality standards. The foreman told the driver to do as

instructed. At this point the driver removed his little values note book from his

pocket, turned the page on Quality, and pointed to one of the behaviours.

This says that anyone can and must prevent poor quality products leaving

the grounds. Shall we discuss this or do we need to discuss it with theGeneral Manager?

Everyone in SAB knew that the CEO and executive committee were primary

champions of the values. This enabled the fork lift driver to engage with a foreman

and flag that the behaviour was not aligned to the values. It is only when this can

occur without fear of retribution that values come alive.

So, let us explore what the various waves of values look like so that

People can develop a shared meaning of what is acceptable and what is not;

Leaders can communicate what is expected and what will no longer be accepted; And, everyone can join forces in driving the shift to New Economy Leadership

and values.

1st Wave: Coercion - Violence & Demand Dependence

The values of coercion depend on the capacity of one party to force another to

submit to their views or demands. This coercion may be very obvious and overt. We

see this when a leader threatens someone with being fired or even with death. Some

of the great dictators of the world have been past masters at this. In most modern

societies we dont really encounter this too often. Its often more polite and

sublimated. The intent is the same to force others to subjugate their views to ours.

Christo was facilitating a session with the CEO team of a major

manufacturing company. We had conducted an organisational culture

diagnosis and it demonstrated that the company was firmly entrenched in Old

Economy practices. The focus groups had given ample evidence that

management by fear was the common practice. As Christo was giving the


21/42

feedback it became apparent that the CEO was getting irritated and unwilling

to acknowledge some of the challenges facing the firm.

After yet another rejection of the research results it became clear that he

had had enough. He pushed his spectacles onto the front of his nose, gazed

around the room full of executives and asked, Are there anymore

questions?! Everyone remained quiet. With one move and gaze he had

effectively shut up a room of well qualified individuals who were all earning

seven figure incomes per year.

The CEO did not have to wield a weapon or force anyone into prison without trial.

All he had to do was assert his autocratic power to impose his demand on others.

His rule of fear had been successful. He acted in a seemingly well mannered way,

but the message was clear: If any one of you dare to disagree with me you will barethe brunt of my tacit violence!

The end result is that it creates a system of passivity and unwillingness to

challenge any view or opinion of a more senior person. The culture of implicit or

overt fear makes people too uncertain to assert themselves. It creates a culture of

dependency where individuals and groups are too afraid to rock the boat and

steadily decline into a swamp of passivity, apathy, and at most passive aggression.

How often do we not see this in organisations? The leader who tells people Either fit in or leave and proves unwilling and

incapable of creating the space for constructive dissent.

The person with more power who says I dont have time for people who cant

see it as it is! meaning do it my way or leave

The employee who arrives at work day in and day out and simply follows

instructions.

The clerk who rigidly follows the rules even if means that a client will get so

irritated they take their business elsewhere.

The workforce who wait passively for the leaders to give direction, and then

follow it without question.

The individual who says Im not to blame. I was simply following orders.

One of the most common results of this wave of values is that even the most

mundane decisions often have to be made by people in very senior positions. People

are treated as if they are either not trustworthy or incapable of making judgements

and decisions that will benefit the organisation. Procedures and controls that

suffocate individual imagination and endeavours are a common feature.


22/42

2nd Wave: Cooption Money & Control - Co-dependence

As is the case with the 1st wave of values, the 2nd also has the affect of

undermining the authenticity and basic adult capabilities of people. The major

difference is that the style of leadership often shifts from the more harsh authoritarian

style of the 1st wave to that of the hero leader. In essence the underpinning

leadership values still remain that the leader knows better and needs to demonstrate

the capacity to be in charge all or at least the vast majority of the time.

Leaders and organisations that rely heavily on these values have some common

characteristics:

Leaders do not appear open to be challenged, although they will engage with

people under circumstances where they are clearly in control. Leaders have a strong aversion to appearing as if they do not have an answer or

do not know what is going on.

It is important to be seen to endorse the leaders because ones own wellbeing

will generally be affected by whether the leader likes or dislikes you.

It is more important to do some right than do the right thing. For this reason

people are not generally willing to openly identify and admit personal errors.

Errors are not welcomed and are definitely not used to stimulate learning.

The system as a whole is risk averse because there is not a culture of learning. The need to be, or at least appear to be, in control encourages silo behaviour.

Leaders and people within silos do not readily interact with one another if they

cannot quite clearly define separate accountabilities mostly to ensure that the

we cannot be blamed for something theyve done.

People are loath to get involved with activities where they cannot take charge and

control resources.

Departments and divisions that are essentially interdependent and rely on one

another to ultimately deliver services and product to the customer are often at

loggerheads or simply do not understand one anothers roles and needs.

o Production blames sales for expecting unrealistic flexibility and prices.

o Sales blame production and warehousing for not having the right stocks in

hand.

o Finance blames everyone for allowing costs to get out of hand.

o HR blames line management for not allowing adequate budgets for

training and development.

o Sales blames finance for being too slow in authorising credit for

customers.


23/42

One function is often viewed as significantly more important than another. This is

often related to which function the CEO and the most influential executives view

as the most important.

These systems rely a great deal on the extent to which they can co-opt others to

provide support. Money, privilege and patronage regularly play a significant role in

this. The people with the power to allocate money, privilege and patronage use this

to reward those who are loyal to them and withhold it from those who are not

favoured as much. Straight talking and robust feedback are often largely absent

because in these systems forthright honesty of views and feedback may reduce

ones own capacity to receive money and privilege. Likewise management will often

be loath to give direct feedback on inadequate performance because they do not

want to run the risk of becoming unpopular with peers and people reporting to them.In worst cases relationships become co-dependent or counter-dependent as some

may define it. When this occurs relationships are often characterised by passive

aggression. Tense relationships between management and unions, or between the

organisation and a key supplier such as its bank, can often develop into co-

dependence. Essentially the different parties do not trust one another or like one

another much, but they need one another regardless. Co-dependence and

counterdependence requires at least two parties to collude with one another to

continuously reinforce a system that undermines the long term and sustainableinterests of both parties.

At best the diverse parties will develop a pattern of behaviour that perpetually

fluctuates from attempts to co-opt one another, to outbreaks of aggression, and

continuously underpinned by mistrust. At the best of times a politeness barrier is

maintained which enables the parties to pretend as if everything is fine, but at a

deeper level everyone knows it is only a temporary truce. Perhaps the worst aspect

of the politeness barrier is that people are never truly honest, open and forthright

with one another. As a consequence everyone is left guessing where they stand with

one another, rather than relying on straight talking and demonstrating the courage it

takes to have a tough conversation.

3rd Wave: Collaboration - Information & Self Insight Independence and

Interdependence

The shift from 1st and 2nd wave values to 3rd wave values is perhaps the most

difficult one. In many ways it represents a revolution rather than evolution. As the

table Living the Four Waves of Values in Practice illustrates, the shift from 1st to

2nd is generally an incremental one. But the next shift to 3 rd wave values represents a


24/42

significant leap over a chasm dividing two often mutually exclusive worlds of values.

At the very least this soft revolution is as disruptive as the hard revolution shift

from paper based information systems and sea or air based postal services in one

world, and electronic information systems and the Internet in another world.

The shift from 1st and 2nd wave to 3rd wave

values is a disruptive leap. It is not possible

to incrementally adapt from the one to the

other.

Perhaps the dominant reason that so few organisations have already embraced

New Economy Leadership is because the values shift is inherently disruptive. It

represents a quantum leap, a revolution, it is disruptive and not an incrementaladjustment.

A horse drawn cart cannot be incrementally adapted into an internal combustion

motor car. This is true even though some rules may remain the same for both,

e.g. which side of the road to travel on. But the leap from the one to the other is

disruptive.

Apartheid could not be incrementally adjusted into democracy. It required a

disruptive leap from one system to the other, even though the parliaments of bothsystems still sits in Cape Town.

No amount of incremental adjustments can turn a manual type writer into a laptop

computer with word processing packages, even though both use the same

alphabet.

The primary motive of sustainable profitability is the same for companies

operating in the Old or New Economy, but the ways of achieving it are radically

different.

We often find that leaders resist accepting the quantum leap nature of

transforming their organisations into New Economy Leadership because they claim

that the basics remain the same. This is as true as claiming that manual type writers

and computerised word processing both use the same alphabet, and that there is

therefore no need for fundamental change. Think back to the imaginary leader falling

into a coma in 1850 and waking up in 1980. What would have happened to him if he

claimed that the country he was in was still populated with diverse people, and so it

was quite unnecessary to stop buying and selling slaves in the local super market?


25/42

The shift to 3rd wave values and practices represents a radical move which

accepts that the entire value stream, all stakeholders, and people at every level of

the organisation have vitally important contributions to make. Leaders of such

organisations fully comprehend and demonstrate that they believe that organisations

are first and foremost human systems, and therefore have to be designed

accordingly. This is not or other new age and fluffy approach. Instead it is one that

moves sharply away from authority-driven performance to a culture and workplace

practices that encourage and enable self mastery and people-driven

performance.

New Economy Leaders comprehend that sustainable competitiveness can only be

achieved if all of the stakeholders and people are dedicated collaborators who have

a shared passion to make the organisation succeed in both the short and long term.

For this reason New Economy Organisations entrench an integrated set of businessprocesses and practices that tap into and remain committed to unleashing the full

potential of people. Rather controlling people these leaders and organisations

recognise that the secret to success is to unleash and harness the energy that exists

within the vast majority of adults.

Energising interdependence can only be

achieved by individuals who have a healthy

sense of self and independence. It is only whenindividuals and stakeholders truly believe that

their right to independent existence is not

threatened that they will become lasting

collaborators in achieving sustainable

competitiveness.

This can only be achieved once the vast majority of individuals and all

stakeholders genuinely feel that their own independence and right to exist is

appreciated and valued. People or stakeholders who have not yet developed a

healthy sense of identity and capacity to assert their own presence in a lasting and

non-threatening manner cannot become effective collaborators in achieving

sustainable competitiveness. Healthy independence is in this way the cornerstone of

lively and energising interdependence. The two go hand in hand.

At the root of this is the capacity to reflect, to develop self insight, and to actively

use information to drive continuous change and improvement. But, people who are

fearful and feel that they are not truly respected as individuals, or for what they


26/42

stand, will not make this leap. This is equally true for the senior executive and the

operational worker.

The 3rd wave represents leaders and organisations who have a passion for

unleashing the energy of people, to unleash the collective genius of teams, and to

harness the integrated power of the entire value stream and community within which

it flows.

4th Wave: Co-creation - Environment & 7th Generation - Integration

Since the Second World War the role of organisations and both the private and

public sectors have become increasingly important at both national and international

levels. BY the end of the 20th Century it had become safe to say that companies, and

specifically those with global reach, had become the primary shapers of social norms

and values. In many ways the global organisation today wields even more influencethan most governments. An organisation with global reach can enter into

agreements with foreign governments and companies with much greater speed than

most governments in their own countries. The globalisation that is accompanying the

New Economy is moving the corporate world into the forefront of exercising intended

and often unintended influence far beyond the realms of traditional business and

economic practices.

As both the hard and soft revolutions continue to take root, organisations, and

specifically those within the private and parastatal sectors, will need to seriouslyreview how they view and act within the local global communities they serve and are

served by. Governments and their various departments likewise have the increasing

accountability to review their roles in contributing to the establishment of societies

both their own and with their trading partners that are healthy, independent,

capable of resilient interdependence, and ultimately sustainable.

The Bioss organisation, well known for the CPA (Career Path Appreciation)

evaluation process, defines this as Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Prescience.

(Bioss International Southern Africa.)

Corporate Citizenship has to do with the realisation that organisations

need to be positioned in the present to secure their viability for periods of 15

to 20 years into the future. This requires a specific leadership intent and

capability to obtain, interpret and shape information at levels of global as well

as local relevance and complexity. It goes far beyond the bounds of traditional

organisational life. Instead it seeks to make sense of and respond to political,

economic, social, technological, environmental, regulatory and religious

trends that may be all but invisible at present. Needless to say, this requires


27/42

enhanced capacity to feel comfortable and work with fuzzy information,

ambiguity and paradoxes. At this level leaders are increasingly expected to

develop a deeper understanding of other cultures, to sense what may be

developing, and to make their organisation aware of it in ways that stimulate

executives to interpret it and turn it into viable strategies.

Corporate Prescience goes further. It requires organisations and their

leaders to consider how decisions will affect generations to come. We call this

the 7th Generation. In other words, leaders have to facilitate the creation of

organisations and processes that take account of and the wellbeing of the

great-great-great-great grandchildren of the present generation. This requires

a sense of purpose and seamless integration with the larger global society

that is often still largely absent in present organisations and governments.

One of the things that makes this task so difficult is that it is necessary toconsider and respond in terms of social structures, organisations, nations,

groupings and systems that do not yet exist.

From the vantage point of the first decade of 2000, it may appear to be

unrealistically idealistic to consider that leaders and organisations would ever

consider embracing 4th wave values and the deeds this requires. Yet there are

famous historic examples where this did occur.

President Abraham Lincoln must have suffered extraordinary angst as hewitnessed his country embroiled in the destruction of civil war. Yet the far

reaching dream of people living free from the inhumanity of slavery burned

brighter than the pain of war. It would ultimately take more than a hundred years

for the fullness of civil liberties to be granted to the off spring of the slaves that

were freed in the mid 1800s, but without that war it may have taken longer.

In the 1950s, the ANC, and leaders like Oliver Thambo, Govan Mbeki, Walter

Sisulu and Nelson Mandela, embarked upon an armed struggle against

Apartheid. But, from the start they were committed to targeting non-human

targets. Their deeply held belief was that the harsh system would not be removed

without such pressure, but they also resisted wholesale terrorism that would inflict

harm on innocents. It was only decades later when the Apartheid state had

turned to hit squads, torture and murder of detainees, that the armed struggle

was escalated to include human targets. It would take more than 40 years before

the dream of democracy was attained, and will probably take another few

generations before the legacy of Apartheid is finally eliminated.

It is much too early to judge whether the premier 3 rd and 4th wave initiative in

Africa will succeed, but in the 1990s President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa


28/42

played a major role in conceptualising and establishing NEPAD the New

Partnership for Africas Development. But if it succeeds it will contain many of the

characteristics of 3rd and 4th wave values and leadership, of Corporate Citizenship

and Prescience. If it fails it will probably be because leaders and organisations

proved to be incapable of escaping the web of 1st and 2nd wave values.

These examples are drawn from the deeds of leaders of governments and

nations. It may still be too early to confidently identify examples from the world of

business, although there are some instances where for a while leaders and their

organisations do appear to have risen to this level.

When Henry Ford committed himself and his organisation to manufacture motor

cars that were inexpensive enough that every worker in his factory could ownone, he set a revolution in motion. When he went further to pay his employees

almost twice as much as the norm he went further to transforming the world of

work and relationships with employees for ever.

When Bill Gates set out to fulfil his vision that there should be a PC on every

office table and one in every home, he also set a revolution in motion.

When Eskom, South Africas electricity utility, bucked every trend of the time in

the mid 1980s, they were already contributing to the growth of an economy and

society that no one at the time thought would be realised in their life time. Theycommitted themselves to becoming the cheapest provider of electricity in the

world; to establish a Southern African electricity grid; and to provide electricity for

all South Africans. They did this at a time when they were a bloated bureaucracy

and monopoly that made profits by simply putting up prices; when South Africa

was effectively involved in low density war with its neighbours; and when the

Apartheid government was still committed to treating the black society as second

class citizens with no rights to vote, never mind having access to electricity.

It is easy to become sceptical and cynical when we try to locate enduring

examples of 3rd and especially 4th wave values operating in modern day

organisations and societies. Perhaps the slaves, colonial servants and children tied

to machines in factories employing child labour felt the same in the 1850s. The

African Americans must have at times despaired when the leaders of the Civil Rights

movement in the USA in the 1960s were being persecuted and assassinated. When,

one wonders, did Mahatma Ghandi start believing that his campaign of passive

resistance was really going to bare fruit?


29/42

The good news is that there is a rapidly growing body of research and empiric

evidence which demonstrates the economic impact and contribution to sustainable

high performance that can be attributed to the Values Shift.

The leadership challenge is to embark upon the journey. Every lesson and

experience along the way will provide new insights, create greater hope and

courage, and contribute to the achievement of sustainably competitive organisations

that are fit and friendly for human life.

Assessing the status of your organisation

The following assessment tool enables you to determine the extent to which yourorganisation currently is practicing the range of 1st to 4th Wave Values. NO

organisation ever operates in only one or two of these waves. There is always a

spread of practices and tendencies that represent at least three of the waves. Read

the four sets of descriptions for any facet of the values, e.g. Power or Strategy

Execution. Now allocate 10 points across the four sets of descriptions to indicate

the extent to which your organisation at present fulfils three to four of these

indicators. You may for instance rate your organisation as follows for various

elements:

Power 1 3 6 0

Strategy Execution 1 2 5 2

Each time your four scores must add up to ten. A spreadsheet has been provided so

that you can enter your scores directly into the spreadsheet which will then generate

a values profile for your organisation or a part of it.


30/42

New Economy Leadership and Values

Evaluating the true values of leadership and the organisation


31/42


32/42

The World of Deep Values

Please use this evaluation to determine the deep underlying values that drive decisions, leadership, repsonses to the larger

environment, how the organisation is managed, and how people are led within your organisation.

As you review these 4 Waves of Values, put on a 75% Hat.In other words, ask yourself what you think the general response of

75% of the people would be if they were given the opportunity to assess the REAL as opposed to ESPOUSED values of the

organisation.

Remember, the organisations and our personal values are first and foremost expressed through our individual and collective

behaviours. Approaches to Management and Leadership are ultimately no more or less than the conscious or unconscious bias

towards certain Waves of Values, and living those values through how we believe an organisation should be run. This will largely

determine how individuals and teams exercise power, conduct performance reviews, develop people, etc.

So discuss the real-life way that things are done most of the time, and then reach a conclusion on your organisations REAL

values. What does this say of how individuals at every level within the organisation may behave and respond?


33/42

Living the Four Waves of Values in Practice

Leadership and

Organisational

Practice

Old Economy

Coercion Cooption

New Economy

Collaboration Co-creation

Power

Clear patterns of

subservience and

superiority exist.

People are viewed as

servants to be led.

Power is exerted by

some over others.

Power is granted to some

and withheld from

others.

Privileged & informal

networks hold and

control power.

There are distinct

favourites and

secondary citizens.

Power is exercised with

and through affected

people.

Skills of participative, high

involvement practices

are very well and widely

developed.

High involvement

leadership is

understood and

practiced widely.

People with influence

practice Servant

Leadership.

Strategy

Execution

Strategy sits in the

heads of a few people

at the top.

People dont know what

the organisations

strategy is.

Strategy is generally a top-

down instruction.

Strict executive prerogative

prevails.

Dissent is frowned upon.

The process is well

established and

transparent.

All affected stakeholders

can provide inputs.

All levels understand

how their roles

contribute to strategic

objectives.

Strategy execution is

a dynamic and

ongoing process that

lives across all levels.


34/42

People are expected to

do as they are told.

People abdicate upwards.

Leaders openly invite

disagreement and

dissenting views.

Information

Secrecy is prevalent.

Only the elite have

access to information.

Often inadequate.

People caught by

surprise when things

go badly.

Designed for use by senior

management.

Inaccessible to operational

people.

Bad news is shared. Good

news is guarded to not

raise expectations.

Readily accessible and

user-friendly.

Structured to meet the

needs of all users.

Continuous feedback on

the state of the

organisation.

People are involved

to determine what

information is

required.

People are equipped

to use information to

guide self

management.

Hierarchy

People are expected to

operate through the

chains of command.

Crossing boundaries in

any direction is not

welcomed.

Silos operate largely in

isolation.

What and who is controlled

determines status.

Advice from others is seen

as interference.

Everyone can approach

anyone anywhere to

resolve a problem.

Roles are very clearly

defined at each level.

Contribution determines

status.

The hierarchy

enables people to

advance either as

managers, or by

deepening their

specialist field

without needing to

become managers.


35/42

Leadership and

Organisational

Practice

Old Economy

Coercion Cooption

New Economy


Decision making

Decisions are made at

the top.

People are not involved

significantly.

Emphasis is on

subordinate

compliance.

The focus is on not

making mistakes.

People are informed with

no real influence

allowed.

Decisions have to be

cleared too high up or

by too many people.

People often feel

disempowered.

The focus is on ensuring

control.

Well developed team

decision making skills

are in place.

Decisions get made and

executed at the most

effective level by the

people doing the work.

The focus is on improving

productivity and quality.

Every effort is made

to involve people in

decisions that affect

them.

The focus is on

enhancing value

streams and

innovation.

Diversity

Certain types of people

are excluded from

important jobs.

Overt racism and/or

sexism exists.

Certain types of people

dominate important

roles.

Subtle racism and/or

sexism exist and

Diversity is seen as a core

element of sustainable

competitiveness.

People have astute ability

to value and mine the

Unleashing diversity

is a significant

competitive

advantage.

Conscious effort is

made to define and

include the diversity


36/42

Groups in power are

relatively

homogenous in

outlook and beliefs.

tolerated without

addressing them head

on.

People with conflicting or

unpopular views are

side lined.

diversity of others be

that style, experience,

race, gender, expertise,

etc.

of all stakeholders

and communities.

Diversity is loved, not

just managed.

ChangeLeadership

Change occurs through

imposition.

Managed almost entirely

in a rational manner.

Human responses to

change are seen as

negative.

Project management is

seen as adequate

change leadership.

Minimal investment is

made in change

leadership

competencies.

Change process is often

rushed or

underestimated

Change leadership is a

core leadership

competence across all

levels of work.

Every change process

consciously invests in

adequate change

leadership activities.

The vast majority of

people are truly

change fit.

Change is accepted

as ongoing and

inevitable.

Change does not

cause mistrust or

suspicion.


37/42

Leadership and

Organisational

Practice

Old Economy

Coercion Cooption

New Economy


Performance

Management (PM)

People have little clarity

on what is expected

of them.

Expectations are altered

without involvement.

Feedback is negligible

expect when things

go wrong.

PM consists largely of ad

hoc feedback.

PM does not form an

energising part of

regular work.

Feedback ratings often

catch people by

surprise.

PM forms an integral part

of the daily running of

the organisation.

People trust and enjoy the

process.

PM is directly linked to

strategy execution and

service delivery.

People consistently

give and receive

feedback

regardless of level or

position.

The entire

organisation uses PM

well, and is energised

by it.

Talent creation

Development of people

is a waste of time.

People who leave are

viewed as disloyal

and are rejected.

The first budgets to be cut

are for development.

Silos hoard their talented

people.

Inter-divisional talent

transfers are resisted.

Talented people are seen

as an enterprise wide

asset.

Talented people are

readily transferred

where most needed or

best developed.

The organisation

sees itself as a portal

and springboard for

talent.

People who leave are

viewed as valuable

alumni and relations

are maintained.

Stakeholdership Every decision is


38/42

Only the direct owners

or controllers of the

organisation are seen

as important.

Fulfilling the (largely

short term) and direct

interests of those with

power is prevalent.

Natural and people

resources are viewed

as property and rights

to exploit.

Stakeholders generally

focus on competing

interests.

Power plays between

stakeholders are

common.

The shareholders are the

favoured and dominant

stakeholder.

Shareholder and executive

interests dominate.

The organisation is run

with the specific intent

to balance interests and

benefit all stakeholders.

Leaders operate in ways

that engage and benefit

the larger community

beyond the usual norms

of business.

Organisations are created

to be fit and friendly for

human life.

measured against the

impact it will have on

the 7th Generation.

Leaders view

themselves as the

stewards who secure

the organisations

long term future.

Leaders accept their

role as community

and global citizens.


39/42

What is your organisations Values Profile?

Leadership and

Organisational

Practice

Old Economy

1st Wave 2nd Wave

New Economy

3rd Wave 4th Wave

Power2

1 5 4

Strategy

Information

Hierarchy

Decision making

Diversity

Change

Leadership

Performance

Management (PM)

Talent creation

Stakeholdership

Total

Read the definitions for the four waves of values in the table and 1st Wave 2nd Wave 3rd Wave 4th


40/42

then rate your organisation by allocating 10 points across each of

the four waves for each of the Leadership and Organisational

Practices. For example, your rating for the first one may look like

this:

Wave

Power 2 6 2 0


41/42

17


42/42

i

ii

Article_Christo Nel_Values Shift_with Assessment Process

Documents

Transcript of Article_Christo Nel_Values Shift_with Assessment Process