Posted: April 25th, 2025
Creating a Team-Value System
Values are the core of humanity, and they drive behaviors in situations people face in all aspects of life. This assignment is mostly a reflection of your experience in seeking further understanding of others, and it will help you connect behaviors to values.
Read the paper on “Leading Sustainable Change Through Self-Discovery: A Values Accountability System Defined” (Sun, 2007). Click
here
to download the paper. (attached)
Using one of the three teams you selected for the Week 1 final project assignment, follow the values accountability process to establish a values statement for your team.
In this exercise, gather the values systems of at least three other team members (see Step 3 of the Values Accountability System).
Prepare a three-to-four-page paper using Microsoft Word. Your paper should cover the following:
- How does the current team environment enable or challenge the process defined by the VAsys?
- How challenging was it to ask about the values of your peers?
- How much agreement did you find on the surface of the values (level of individual congruence)?
- How many differences were there in the interpretations of the same values?
- Were there any major surprises? Explain.
- How challenging was the process of coming to a consensus on top values shared by the team?
- How do the values reflect team norms?
Submission Details:
Due by 11/4/24 at 10:00pm CST
Requirements:
1. Make certain to include in text citations from your course text in addition to your outside leadership resources within your main post. This adds credibility to your argument. [Textbook]: Butterfield, J. (2017).
Teamwork and Team Building
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781337119276
2. No plagiarism will be tolerated. Must be in 7th Edition APA format with cited sources within the last 5 years.
3. No AI support, score must be 0% and less than < 10% score on Turnitin
2
Organizational Team Building
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Organizational Team Building
Purpose, Goals, And Objectives of Each of the Three Teams
Team 1: Operations Management Team
Purpose: Amazon’s Operations Management is responsible for managing all operational and tangible ordering activities. This team focuses on warehousing, inventory, supply chain, and shipping. This team is crucial to Amazon’s delivery service provision by working to ensure fast delivery through optimization of costs and duration that it takes to process the orders.
Goals: Some of the major objectives include heightened work efficiency, reduction in cost and waste, and maintaining customers’ required filled rates and response times. The team challenges itself to reduce order processing time by 15% and achieve 99.9% order accuracy in the subsequent year at the primary fulfillment centers.
Objectives: Best practices training, using advanced automation tools, and optimization of last-mile delivery routes are the targeted objectives of Operations teams. The team also tracks the operating budget to ensure that it stays within the target and reducing the general expenditure by 10%. This balance of efficiency, cost, and customer happiness enables Operations to have objectives for short-term working and strategic planning.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
Purpose: Amazon Customer Service employees address the issues with orders, products, and services. These enable a customer-oriented culture within Amazon based on the efficient and immediate satisfaction of client needs. It manages the refund of products, problem solving, and customer grievances thus creating a link between Amazon and its consumers.
Goals: The Customer Service team always wanted to have a higher level of satisfaction and higher rates of complaints resolution. They should respond to consumers within five minutes and address all customer complaints in the first contact within a quarter. They strive to keep and even improve the score of 4.8 out of 5 for customer satisfaction.
Objectives: Project goals include increasing product-specific training, employing AI-driven response tools to streamline workflow, and conducting weekly quality assurance reviews. It also involves Operations in handling complaints on logistic issues such as delayed or missing shipments. These goals contribute to making Amazon a reliable market.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
Purpose: Amazon’s Product Development and Innovation — evaluates new and emerging technologies and products to maintain market viability. This team brings in new features, products and services for the clients to enhance their experience with Amazon; some of the examples are Alexa, Kindle and Amazon’s new offers.
Goals: This team has the responsibility of developing two major new products annually and enhancing goods based on consumer responses. They establish having quarterly goals to create and implement, as well as experiment with concepts and designs, and their initiative is to release one near-final mock-up every six months for customers to try.
Objectives: Specific objectives include holding monthly user input sessions to determine missing products, working closely with the software and hardware development teams, and decreasing the product development cycle by 10%. Ensuring new products align with the company strategy and consumer goals is another reason for cross functional with marketing and operations functions. These goals assist Amazon in developing innovative strategies and fulfilling customer needs.
Analysis of Each Team’s Type
Team 1: Operations Management Team
Team Type:
Manager-Led Team
Analysis: Amazon Operations Management is mostly managed by managers. Teams responsible for critical operational operations use this structure to tightly control tasks and assure efficiency and accuracy. The Operations Manager oversees inventory management, shipping, and delivery workflows in a manager-led team to guarantee fulfillment center goals are reached. Amazon’s scale and speed require swift decision-making, unambiguous responsibility, and protocol compliance, which this team type facilitates.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
Team Type:
Self-Directing Team
Analysis: Members of the consumer Service team handle consumer queries and complaints independently. Although management sets rules and standards, customer care professionals can make real-time judgments to resolve situations like refunds and returns. This team structure allows response and flexibility, meeting customer needs efficiently. Self-direction allows this team’s representatives to use their training and judgment to better resolve customer issues and satisfy customers by adapting to each engagement.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
Team Type:
Self-Governing Team
Analysis: The Product Development and Innovation team manages itself and makes important choices on new product ideas, features, and innovation initiatives. Self-governing teams let members create goals, choose workflows, and lead projects using their expertise and creativity. Amazon’s creativity relies on this team’s freedom to think, experiment, and prototype without manager permission. They report to senior leaders and follow organizational goals. Team members may use their experience and make agile decisions to stay competitive in this self-governing framework, supporting Amazon’s rapid innovation and market response.
The Current Stage of Team Development
Team 1: Operations Management Team
Amazon’s Operations Management staff appears to be Performing. Team members know their operational roles, duties, and workflows at this point. After role delineation, dispute resolution, and standardization, the team works well together. Well-established daily and weekly routines optimize inventory control, shipping timing, and fulfillment accuracy. As an Operations Manager, you help team members focus on goals like fulfillment and processing time reduction. Continuous improvement meetings may help the team adjust processes based on performance indicators and feedback. This stage’s high-functioning dynamic allows team members to anticipate each other’s demands, eliminating managerial intervention in daily chores and boosting productivity.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
The Customer Service team is in the Norming stage of development, finding stability after alignment and protocol issues. Over this stage, team members build trust, understand one another’s competencies, and collaborate on fulfilling customer satisfaction goals (Cresswell-Yeager, 2020). However, they might have passed initial impediments like handling diverse customers’ requests and compliance with service standards, but now they are using every best means to ensure quick solutions. It is a necessary step for customer support teams to have applied their protocols from past stages routinely. Representatives may have some degree of individual freedom in response to client issues, but protocols are adhered to in this cohesive team in response to a given situation. In addition, the standards are further bolstered through regular training, feedback loops, and quality checks that offer chances for continuous improvement. The said team is, therefore, well set to enter the Performing phase as they ramp up service delivery.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
Creative and collaborative teams often enter the Storming stage, like the Product Development and Innovation team. There may be conflict as members advance their ideas and attempt to influence others and transform thoughts into better thoughts and ideas to arrive at the best product ideas. This dynamic usually encompasses disagreements over product strategies, features to prioritize, and a company’s budget. The storming stage is essential for a product innovation team to debate and come up with the best option to choose from. These issues require team members to manage their differences constructively and make sure that they understand one another well. Specific steps need to be followed before one enters the Norming stage; these include developing two-way communication within the team and ensuring everyone is on the same page regarding the projects. Once these problems are solved, they can become more integrated, which allows for a more integrated approach to innovation and product development.
The Dynamics of Each Team
Team 1: Operations Management Team
Operations Management has a clear hierarchy and structured, efficiency-driven interactions and work assignments. Operational work means being efficient and fast; consequently, team members are familiar with patterns and protocols. This alignment minimizes interpersonal conflicts because it assigns responsibilities. Interpersonal conflicts often arise from workflow issues, process coordination, and allocation of resources. These issues are solved by prompt and specific managerial actions such as reminding the team members about the protocols or changing duties and roles to align with their abilities (Hadorn, 2022). It also provides ordinary feedback sessions that sort out all the petty problems before they become significant misunderstandings. The Operations Manager maintains communication with the various parties and ensures conflicts are solved as and when they arise to enhance the efficiency and productivity of the team.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
Customer service team works collaboratively to address client demands with empathy and swift decision-making. Members work independently, providing a supportive culture where everyone can solve challenges. Customer service representatives may argue over policy or client interaction due to the many difficulties they face. To solve these issues, customer service supervisors lead team discussions and individual coaching. If procedural uncertainty generates disagreements, management may adjust protocols and train people to ensure uniformity. The team meets frequently to discuss recurring issues and share best practices, creating a collaborative environment that resolves interpersonal challenges. Team cohesion and problem-solving improve in this open atmosphere because team members seek peer input and support.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
Product Development and Innovation has a creative, autonomous, and open-minded culture. Since the team develops new goods and refines unique concepts, there is a natural difference of viewpoints and ideas, which might lead to conflict. There are often disagreements about project direction, idea priority, and creative vision. Team members can freely submit and critique ideas via structured brainstorming and assisted conversations to tackle these interpersonal challenges. A self-governing team uses consensus-building methods like voting on top ideas or getting feedback from other departments to resolve issues (Karjalainen, 2020). The team leader or mediator may also help clarify goals, refocus on project objectives, and keep talks productive. This open method to dispute resolution allows all views to be heard and the team to enhance ideas through constructive feedback while retaining trust and respect.
The Performance and Productivity of Each Team
Team 1: Operations Management Team
Clear metrics and goals drive Operations Management’s performance and productivity. According to this week’s manager-led team readings, defined processes and efficiency-driven protocols affect team performance (Butterfield, 2017). Manager-led teams benefit from “strong direction and clear objectives,” which defines responsibilities and assures predictable, efficient work completion, according to team performance literature (Islami et al., 2020). Fulfillment rates, inventory accuracy, and delivery speed are Amazon’s key performance measures. The planned process and clear objectives help the team maintain high productivity because each member knows their role and how it affects performance. The readings also emphasize the importance of feedback loops in productivity; in this team, regular performance assessments and feedback sessions reduce inefficiencies and enhance productivity.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
Customer Service’s reactivity and adaptation to customer needs affects performance and productivity, which correlates with self-directing team readings. The readings suggest that self-directing teams are more adaptable because they can make their own choices, and representatives work better as they are empowered to solve issues (Butterfield, 2017). There are specific key performance indicators that are utilized by the Customer Service department at Amazon, such as response time, first-call resolutions, and customer satisfaction levels. Self-direction enables the team members to accommodate the feedback received from the client, hence enhancing engagement and ownership, as postulated by Slemp et al. (2021). However, according to the readings, when people are granted autonomy and independence, which do not outline specific guidelines to follow, there might be some bias and even inconsistency. The structured training and management practices that Amazon’s client Service team implements help ensure client satisfaction, job efficiency, and consistency across various client experiences.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
This week’s reading of self-governing teams suggests that the Product Development and Innovation team has performance metrics regarding how effectively it can generate feasible ideas and new products. The readings indicate that self-managing teams perform well in innovative environments since independence fosters inspiration and long-term objectives (Butterfield, 2017). The performance of this team is judged based on new products developed, innovations attained, and market achievements. Self-organizing teams allow for low formal control because of high flexibility and relatively high autonomy, which reflects increased rates of experimentation that are characteristic of an innovation process, thus decreasing short-term productivity. Amazon has kept this in check by having detailed development schedules and assessments of milestones, all of which are created based on the principles of self-managing teams. The activity helps the team remain engaged and encourages creative thinking and practical problem-solving through frequent check-ins.
The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards
Team 1: Operations Management Team
The Operations Management team rewards extrinsically and intrinsically. Measures such as fulfillment speed, accuracy, and low error rates are practical tools since they focus on performance outcomes. Specifically, Aljumah (2023) evidenced that bonuses and recognition programs motivate manager-led teams with specific and attainable objective KPIs. This could also mean that this team enjoys better remuneration packages, perks, and promotions due to the quality of its performance. The member’s motivation may emanate from mastery of the operational processes and achieving set goals or standards. Thus, intrinsic motivators can enhance pride in good work, where people feel their efforts significantly contribute to organizational effectiveness, as depicted by the readings above. Cross-training within the team and encouraging professional development are intrinsic benefits, as people can learn new skills and progress in their careers.
Team 2: Customer Service Team
Since the client Service team is mainly self-managed and focuses on the client, it obtains extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. This staff earns incentives based on customer satisfaction, initial call resolution, and other metrics. The readings emphasize that extrinsic incentives referring to performance and customers’ opinions can inspire customer-oriented employees since the rewards are based on the proper treatment of customers (Butterfield, 2017). Team members are motivated by serving the client and solving various issues. As stated by Kurdi et al. (2020), employment in customer service is fulfilling due to the positive impact made on clients and their loyalty, which serves a clear purpose. Self-directing enables team members to have confidence in making decisions and using their own discretion to satisfy client requirements, increasing personal and job satisfaction.
Team 3: Product Development and Innovation Team
The Product Development and Innovation team receives a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, with a significant emphasis on intrinsic motivation owing to their creative work. Team members may get bonuses for the new product launch, innovation, and the overall impact achieved by the team. As applied to actual outcomes, extrinsic motivation, such as performance-based monetary rewards, assists self-managing teams in evaluating and rewarding novel achievements, as pointed out in the readings. The motivation of this crew is the ability to be creative and come up with different ways of implementing their ideas. As suggested in the readings, self-managing teams gain the most from intrinsic motivation, such as autonomy, possession, and the opportunity to work on products. Innovating and making a difference aligns with the team’s purpose to transform Amazon’s products, motivating the members to challenge themselves continually.
References
Aljumah, A. (2023). The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction: The mediating role of transactional leadership.
Cogent Business & Management,
10(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813
Butterfield, J. (2017).
Teamwork and Team Building
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781337119276
Cresswell-Yeager, T. (2020). Forming, storming, norming, and performing: Using a semester-long problem-based learning project to apply small-group communication principles.
Communication Teacher,
35(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2020.1842476
Hadorn, S. (2022). Connecting Network Managers’ Work Contexts with Network Management.
International Series on Public Policy, 127–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08808-7_5
Islami, X., Mulolli, E., & Mustafa, N. (2020). Using Management by Objectives as a Performance Appraisal Tool for Employee Satisfaction.
Future Business Journal,
4(1), 94–108. Sciencedirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.01.001
Karjalainen, R. (2020, May 21).
Governance in Decentralized Networks. Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3551099
Kurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., & Alnaser, A. (2020). The impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction: Theoretical and empirical underpinning.
Management Science Letters,
10(15), 3561–3570. http://m.growingscience.com/beta/msl/4068-the-impact-of-employee-satisfaction-%20on-customer-satisfaction-theoretical-and-empirical-underpinning.html
Slemp, G. R., Lee, M. A., & Mossman, L. H. (2021). Interventions to Support Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness Needs in organizations: a Systematic Review with Recommendations for Research and Practice.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
94(2), 427–457.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12338
Sustainable Change 1
Running Head: SUSTAINABLE CHANGE
Session Paper: Leading Sustainable Change through Self-Discovery: a Values
Accountability System defined.
Submitted to
Global Forum
Business as an Agent of World Benefit Forum: Management Knowledge Leading
Positive Change
By
Dr. Ted Sun
May 8, 2007
Sustainable Change 2
Abstract
Before positive change can truly occur on a systemic level, the identification of one’s
humanity (value and belief systems) is a crucial factor. Countless workshops, research
studies and management courses discuss various behaviors of successful and
unsuccessful leaders. However, when leaders recognize a desired behavior, that leader is
prohibited from achieving a sustainable change in that behavior by the collective rules of
life (such as showing emotions is weakness, so reading about emotional intelligence or
EQ does not create the desired change). In order to create sustainable change, an
individual must look at the core of a human being from the perspective of their own
identity and belief/value systems. Based on recent research with business leaders on
organizational change as well as grounded theories such as Neurolinguistic Programming
(NLP), Systems Thinking and Transformational Leadership, this session guides leaders
through a process that will create sustainable change on a systemic level. The session
title is – Leading Sustainable Change through Self-Discovery: a Values Accountability
System (VAsys)
defined.
As a core foundation of the UN Global Compact, the values concerning human rights,
labor, environment and anti-corruption form the basis for much needed change in global
business practices. Asking leaders to change their behavior is a challenging task.
Keeping a new behavior is an entirely different beast, especially with the pressures of
today’s fast moving environment. Despite the best intentions of business leaders to make
positive change in their own behaviors, these individuals often unconsciously fall into
Sustainable Change 3
their natural habits when under these pressures. VAsys goes significantly beyond
desirable behaviors; it takes participants through a value/belief discovery process that has
proven to be effective in learning about oneself. Participants will start with a self-inquiry
to solidify their own values and beliefs. Thus far, initial studies with working
professionals found a lack of ability to clearly explicate one’s core values. Over 97% of
the subjects have never written down their personal values or a personal vision statement.
Furthermore, defining the context and meaning of a specific value was extremely
challenging. After the initial self-inquiry process, participants review the possible
alignment of their actual behaviors versus their stated values. By seeking the alignment
of values and behaviors, participants are provided the opportunity to change based on
their own values system. This process creates true ownership of change. Once
participants increase the understanding of their own self, they can then begin to learn to
seek the values that underlie other people’s behaviors. Rather than delegating or
informing people of specific changes, leaders can learn to seek understanding of people
and create change from the core of their people. This practice minimizes judgment and
seeks understanding, which, if implemented at the global level would solve many cultural
and political issues.
The impact of the initial studies using VAsys has led many working professionals to a
profound way of being and awareness. If creating a systemic shift in behavior for a
global village is the intention, the process of creating an internal alignment is a powerful
tool for understanding others around the world.
Sustainable Change 4
Table of Contents
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Fear-based Behaviors………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Legal Considerations ………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Cultural Considerations Required……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Creating a Balance for Sustainable Changes ………………………………………………………. 11
…………………………………………….. 12
Systems thinking…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Transformational leadership …………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Socratic methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Multiple intelligences………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Neuro-Linguistic programming ………………………………………………………………………… 18
Educational psychology…………………………………………………………………………………… 19
………………………………………………………… 20
Step 1: Define tacit values ……………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Step 2: Create individual congruence ………………………………………………………………… 22
Step 3: Seek values of others ……………………………………………………………………………. 24
Step 4: Create organizational values system……………………………………………………….. 26
Step 5: Enable the accountability/self-learning system ………………………………………… 27
……………………………………………………………… 28
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
Sustainable Change 5
Leading Sustainable Change through Self-Discovery: A Values Accountability System
defined.
Introduction
Globalization is a massive trend that interconnects people from around the world
(Møller, 2004). With the enormous power of economic connectivity, a crucial need for
identification and application of core values will minimize conflict while creating
extraordinary understanding between individuals, teams, corporations and cultures. As
the world becomes smaller through globalization and technology, the rules that guide and
lead human behaviors need to move from a content-based system of conformity toward a
context-based system of understanding. The Values Accountability System (VAsys)
creates the context for sustainable success in all organization.
Background
The current state of organizations is loaded with content-based logical systems.
Operating with a fear-driven mentality, an abundance of quick fixes and a lack of cultural
understanding permeates many organizations (Baker, Greenberg, & Hemingway, 2006;
Doucet, 2005; “Employers raising the bottom line through diversity,” 2004; Trombly ,
2006). Perhaps, it is much easier to take an aspirin for a headache, than to look for the
root cause of that headache. Or maybe, it is quicker to fire an employee or a CEO who
acted unethically, than to analyze the system that enabled such behaviors. Yet, such
application of the content-based system lacks balance with the real drivers that enable a
global economy with sustainable profits.
Sustainable Change 6
Fear-based Behaviors
Fear is one of the primary bases for many of today’s content-based systems. From a
psychological perspective, one of the most sensitive parts of the human brain is the fear
mechanism (Doyle, 1999). Regardless of an individual’s intent, three limiting fear
responses including freeze, fight and flight eliminate the higher-order thinking of the
human brain (Baker, Greenberg, & Hemingway, 2006). Some of the basic fears include
the fear of incompetence, the fear of abandonment, the fear of losing control and the fear
of anything that is constraint in nature (Doyle, 1999). If an individual perceives these
types of major fears, all the reasoning, education, and the ability to consider the
consequences tend to diminish with the level of perceived fear. Based on these fears, a
system of rules and regulations attempt to govern human behavior in many industrialized
nations. Some are in the form of government regulations enforced by a judicial branch,
but often ignored in many countries (i.e. inconsistency between land regulations and
government practices in China) (Zhu & Prosterman, 2006); others are in the form of
policies regulated by organizational managers and executives. From a comparative
perspective, certain countries are more prone to certain types of fears. One study found
that American consumers are significantly more concerned about being competent and in
control than Chinese consumers (Sun, Chen, Fang & Liang, 2000). Interestingly,
technology and the media bombards business leaders with 50 plus serious events that
cause fear on a weekly basis. Under this bombardment, too many business cultures are
creating self-limiting policies to protect themselves without a balanced effort toward
innovation or inspiration (Baker, Greenberg, & Hemingway, 2006).
Sustainable Change 7
Legal Considerations
One of the most complex and often dominating impacts of fear is a content-based
legal system. Within such a system, a law is required for each situation that manifests.
Within a single country, millions of laws attempt to regulate the behaviors of individuals
on specific situation (content). Within the United States alone, there are an estimated 1.2
million lawyers to manage the complexity of the system (Hostetler, 1992). This
complexity could be worth the investment if it is working. Yet, evidence in the rising
rates of unethical behavior of organizational leaders suggest otherwise. Consider for a
moment if you had “management” directives to not look at someone’s e-mail. What
would automatically happen in your mind? Worse yet, if you knew that certain
performance outcomes would remove your job? How far would you go to protect your
ability to survive? These are just some of many basic policies that caused formerly
respected organizations to fall such as Enron, Adelphia, Arthur Anderson, Tyco and
Lucent Technology (Sauser, 2004). Even within the environment of a single country,
these regulations and policies fail to create desired ethical behaviors of businesses. Some
even speculate that a new business scandal appears on a daily basis (Kelly, as cited in
Sauser, 2004). What will happen when these complex laws and policies begin to
integrate with those of other organizations in different countries with entirely different
cultures?
Mucklow (2000) believes that the global society must create an even more complex
legal system. How many more laws are needed to govern the countless manifestations of
situations when countries and cultures begin to work together? Although this philosophy
creates a thriving legal profession, reductionism approach to managing human behavior
Sustainable Change 8
toward sustainable organizational success is limiting. As Kerr (2004) pointed out, the
considerations of what is “ethical behavior” differs from country to country, and
sometimes even between cultures within the same country. Even the challenge of profit
as the end goal for an organization is questioned in a global economy (Guvenli & Sanyal,
2002). One organization may subscribe to the capitalist approach of seeking the lowest
cost production for higher profits; another culture may subscribe to civil rights of an
industrialized nation while applying those rights to the global village (Lee, 1997). People
subscribe to countless life philosophies that people of different cultures and nationalities.
The complexity involved in creating a middle ground between these beliefs creates an
endless pursuit.
Cultural Considerations Required
Although there is a general agreement that cultural consideration is necessary when
conducting business at the global level, the means to achieve that consideration vary
greatly (Bird & Osland, 2005/2006; Fox, 2006; Javidan, Stahl, Brodbeck, & Wilderom,
2005). Looking at it from a content-based perspective (reductionism), the complexity
would yield a wide range of interpretations where one individual’s logic at that moment
is always better than another individual’s logic. Take for example a well-researched and
accepted concept of human intelligence. According to Georgas, Weiss, van de Vijer,
Saklofske (2003), specific ecological and social requirements define intelligence. With
similar cultures in Taiwan and China, the need for conformity in China creates
contrasting definition of intelligence between the two countries with similar cultures
(Chen, 2001; Ryan, Dai, & Paolo, 1995). An “intelligent” individual in China would
remain silent to show respect. Furthermore, most Chinese are not accustomed to talk
Sustainable Change 9
about their strengths because they are educated to be modest (Georgas, Weiss, van de
Vijer, Saklofske, 2003), while a greater western influence in Taiwan would provide more
flexibility in verbalizing one’s thoughts. Similarly, in Baganda of Uganda, an intelligent
individual would externalize thought, not to keep quiet (Wober, 1974). Similar to
western perspectives, the Kipsgis of Kenya also greatly values verbal quickness as a sign
of intelligence (Super, 1983). How would a corporation create a content-based policy
considering the opposing definitions of what is intelligence and who is respectful? Some
firms may present a flexible solution that allows employees to behave “in Rome as the
Romans do”, but that is often criticized by fellow citizens back in the home country
(Kerr, 2004). Even if such a policy exists, when fear enters the equation of human
behavior, all of the complexity of a content-based system fades away.
The capitalistic model of business can also have a negative impact on sustainable
success. The working definition of capitalism is to maximize the value of
products/services to produce profits. Applying its principles “tends to convert human
socio-economic relations into impersonal ‘relations among things’” (Westra, 2006, p. 9).
When dealing with multinational firms, the lack of cultural consideration can be
devastating. For example, Honda developed an extensive relationship with Rover, a
British automaker for over a decade. This partnership grew significantly when the
government sold Rover to British Aerospace. As Rover continued to have financial
challenges, British Aerospace sold Rover to BMW, applying the basic principles of
capitalism. From the perspective of British Aerospace, the decision made financial sense
and was a common practice to dump unprofitable entities of a corporation. Yet, the lack
of cultural consideration immensely offended Honda executives (Sebenius, 2002). Many
Sustainable Change 10
of the Asian cultures, including the Japanese, value relationships above everything else.
While the capitalistic perspective sees relationships as an outcome of contracts and
agreements, Asian cultures place great weight on relationships (Doucet, 2005; Sebenius,
2002). Another violation in this example is the time element. In western society, the
ability to make quick decisions for efficiency is an admired trait in many organizations.
In eastern society, managers often hold off making major decisions until input from
others are gathered (Sebenius, 2002). This is only one example where decisions made
failed to consider cultural norms. Such blind adherence to capitalism can easily set the
stage for all forms of dissonance between organizations and their people.
Currently around the world, pressures from a global economy are forcing many
nations to review their policies in the workweek. Since some of the world economic
leaders have increased their hours of work per week (United States and Canada in
particular), countries like France and Greece are struggling to maintain their cultural
identity (“Hollow protests,” 2005; Ip, 2004; “The world at work,” 2000). With a
minimum of five weeks of vacation, France enjoys a considerable amount of time off. It
also enjoys a 35-hour workweek. This allows room for their leisurely lifestyle which has
been a cultural tradition. Recently, new legislation allows organizations to go beyond
those cultural norms in the effort to compete globally. A major assumption in the logic is
that more time at work means more production. That assumption may hold true in an
industrial economy, but has little weight in a knowledge-based economy. Yet, many
organizational leaders feel that more time at work will increase output levels in such a
cut-throat global economy (Burd, Davies & Silkin, 2005). What is the impact of those
cultures which greatly value family and freedom, as work demands more time in an effort
Sustainable Change 11
for organizations to survive? What forms of social, political and economic dissonance
will occur by applying certain western principles to cultures that are significantly
different?
Creating a Balance for Sustainable Changes
For governments and corporations desiring sustainable success for global economy, a
contextual system for organizational change would enable cultural considerations by
creating a higher level of awareness, engaging in the higher-order thought of the human
brain. Such a system could serve to balance the content-based systems that currently
dominate many organizations. This particular system looks for internal growth and
understanding, before trying to take actions on strategies and tactics like those suggested
by Kotter’s eight steps model of change or Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model
(French, Bell & Zawacki, 2004). Based on theories and methods including systems
thinking (Checkland, 1999), transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990),
Socratic methods (Boghossian, 2006), multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993),
Neurolinguistic Programming (Balvister & Vickers, 2004), and educational psychology
(Steuwe-Portnoff & Steuwe-Portnoff, 1995; Windschitl as cited in Abbeduto, 2006),
VAsys seeks to create an internal understanding of one’s beliefs and values, before trying
to understand someone else’s beliefs and values. These inner practices help leaders
achieve a new level of leadership within the organization while creating congruence on
an individual level (Johnson, 2001; Williams, 1993). Practiced at an organizational level,
VAsys enables the psychological shift from fear to understanding.
Sustainable Change 12
Creating sustainable change: Theoretical background
The primary theories include a variety of fields from leadership to psychology. From
the leadership body of knowledge, systems thinking, transformational leadership,
Socratic methods & multiple intelligence for the core of the system, systems thinking
(Checkland, 1999) encompasses the design of VAsys from a systemic perspective. With
varying applications of VAsys, it is used with individual systems as well as
organizational system. Transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990) is applied
to create self-aware leaders who are empowered by the system. Specific concepts of
ownership and self-education are adopted for VAsys to have the sustainable impact it
desires. Socratic methods (Boghossian, 2006) are the art of asking questions. With a
fundamental belief that human beings are creative entities, VAsys seeks to use questions
to guide individuals toward being systemic transformational leaders. Multiple
intelligences (Gardner, 1993) is a theory that borders both leadership and psychology.
Much of today’s leadership literature focuses on the importance of emotional intelligence
(ie. Cooper & Sawaf, 1998). In order to create a balanced system, concepts from
multiple intelligence are weaved into the discovery process as well as the accountability
structure.
From a psychology perspective, multiple intelligences, Neurolinguistic Programming,
and educational psychology create the foundation for VAsys. Multiple intelligence
theories are incorporated to enhance one’s self-awareness and to increase self-esteem.
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) (Balvister & Vickers, 2004) was one of the original
theories that started the work on VAsys. By breaking down human behaviors into a core
set of beliefs and values, it clearly illustrates the band aid approach to most of today’s
Sustainable Change 13
methods of dealing with organizational challenges. By applying the basic principles of
NLP, VAsys was able to simplify the process for higher order thinking that create
systemic changes in behavior. Educational psychology (Ormrod, 2006; Steuwe-Portnoff
& Steuwe-Portnoff, 1995; Windschitl as cited in Abbeduto, 2006) encompasses the
nature of learning and development. The consideration of various theories in educational
psychology enables a process of learning for all systems involved such as the individual
from all parts of the world. It provides a contextual path toward creating a self-healing
and self-learning system. For example, constructivism is an active part of VAsys that
promotes long term retention (Ormrod, 2006; Steuwe-Portnoff & Steuwe-Portnoff, 1995;
Windschitl as cited in Abbeduto, 2006). Although the specific terms may not be included
in this paper, the context to making VAsys into a powerful tool derived much of its
power from the latest research in educational psychology.
Systems thinking
Systems thinking is a model that connected the world as a global village. As the field
of education continues to grow in depth, the ability for people to continually learn when
they have reached a higher level appears to be limited. Ironically, the more successful
they become, the less they are capable of learning effectively (Argyris, 2002; Harvard
Business Review on Knowledge Management, 1998). Most educational institutions still
use linear thinking as a methodology for teaching. If something goes wrong, someone or
something is to blame. Yet, global reality consists of countless interconnected entities
without end (Capra, 1996), not straight lines. The interconnectedness of entities is the
basis for systems thinking (Checkland, 1999). In order to understand the behavior, a
complex phenomenon, the nature of the relationships between the parts is essential.
Sustainable Change 14
Today’s systems thinkers see the “existence of different levels of complexity with
different kinds of laws operating at each level… at each level of complexity, the observed
phenomenon exhibit properties that do not exist at the lower level” (Capra, 1996, p.28).
For example, salt is a flavor enhancer used by human beings. It is not toxic as a
substance and used widely in almost every household. At a lower level, salt is made up
of sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl). These two elements are both toxic to the human body.
Outside of the academic environment, most organizations are still under the influence of
reductionist thinking, which accepts the possibility that analyzing the pieces is sufficient
to understanding the whole (Checkland, 1999). Due to these influences, individualism
plays a major part in the values of many people (Morgan, 1998). These values foster
competition rather than cooperation and are dominant in larger corporations. Yet, in
systems theory, the success of an individual requires the success of the people around you
(Checkland, 1999). The challenge for organizational leaders is the leap from theory and
into the muddy waters of the real world. The most difficult aspect appears to be the
analysis of self as a system that affects many other systems.
The concept of a system is used widely to identify various systems that engage in a
global economy. The starting system of focus is the individual. Regardless of one’s
location in the world, the design of VAsys incorporates a contextual systemic process for
self-discovery. As the consciousness of each individual is increased, the
interconnectivity of individuals is utilized to create an organizational consciousness. At
that point, VAsys holds the space for an organizational context to further develop the
core values of an organization.
Sustainable Change 15
Transformational leadership
Burns (1978), who believed that leadership styles stem from an individual’s beliefs
and values, originally coined transformational leadership. In order to be an effective
leader, one must appeal to the follower’s self-interests through understanding (Bass,
1985; Humphreys & Einstein, 2003). While placing immense emphasis on education and
development, transformational leaders seek to create leaders in every follower. The focus
on self-awareness, individual empowerment and collective confidence is crucial to
creating sustainable organizational change and success (Bass, 1990; Bass et al., 2003;
Tucker & Russell, 2004). The four behaviors quantified by Bass (1985) including
charisma (idealized influence), inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration are all considered within the context VAsys. The synthesis of knowledge
from other theories seeks to create a powerful system. For example, multiple intelligence
further develops intellectual stimulation to include other forms of stimulation.
Socratic methods
Socratic methods date back over 2,500 years. Based on Plato’s theory that
knowledge is innate, Socratic methods use the art of asking questions to seek the innate
knowledge of an individual (Boghossian, 2006; Moser & Vander Nat, 1995). While
many theorists believe that communication is the key to getting stakeholder buy-in when
facing change (ie. Barchan, 2006), Plato would contend that an internal communication
through the application of Socratic methods by a leader would create true ownership of
knowledge. For example, rather than creating strategies to communicate the vision,
Socrates would ask multiple levels of questions to help the individual create that vision.
Sustainable Change 16
With a basic belief that every individual is creative and has value to offer, this process
empowers individuals while enhancing one’s learning ability. Although it is much harder
work for the one asking the questions, the process creates optimal learning as individuals
discover knowledge for themselves (Areeda,
1996).
By using Socratic methods, facilitators of VAsys empowers every organization and
individual. Within the accountability structure, Socratic methods create inspiration that
enhances human behavior. Instead of the traditional fear-based and rigid rules and
regulations of typical global corporations, each individual is empowered to create the
context in which greatly increases accountability and ownership.
Multiple intelligences
Initially introduced by Gardner (1993), multiple intelligence attempts to quantify
different forms of intelligence that is beyond the traditional IQ tests. These intelligences
include logical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical and kinesthetic
intelligences. Logical or analytical intelligence forms the majority foundation of
Reductionism. Later, emotional intelligence (EI) grouped Gardner’s (1993) interpersonal
and intrapersonal intelligences. According to Cooper & Sawaf (1998), emotions are a
primary source of power and influence within any system of people. Without the
consideration of EI, the atmosphere of many organizations is toxic and abusive, creating
dissonance at multiple levels. The mountains of policies and regulations based on fear do
not promote optimal human behaviors. EI is a crucial aspect of the system that creates
values such as empathy and trust (Huy, 1999; Solomon, 1993). As leaders learn to build
sustainable trust with a focus on people (the interconnectedness of systems), the global
Sustainable Change 17
organization can achieve greater profits in any industry (Fukuyama, 1995; Whitney,
1996).
Another element of intelligence considered is spiritual intelligence (Van Bockern,
2006). One of the challenges in many organizations today is the lack of balance in the
silencing of one’s soul. Inside every individual, the soul speaks clear and directs
(Hillman, 1997). The soul is also interconnected to every other soul on an energetic level
with immense wisdom (Balvister & Vickers, 2004; Hillman, 1997). Yet, with the
immense education in logic that attempts to silence the soul, many people are not aware
of their own calling (Van Bockern, 2006). Instead, they settle for mediocrity in order to
obtain the perception of survival. Understanding one’s purpose and vision for self is
crucial for organizational congruence. In initial exploratory research of graduate students
in business schools, over 97% of the students did not have a personal vision or purpose
statement. Nor did they have a written values statement. Ironically, most universities
teach the importance of having an organizational vision built on its values. Very few
took the concept of an organization to the most intimate organization of an individual –
the family.
The application of multiple intelligences creates ‘whole-brained’ individuals and
organizations. While each intelligence is a unique system, the interconnectedness of the
multiple intelligences calls for a balance in the development of each intelligence
(Checkland, 1999). In addition to the balanced development, the desires of one’s
calling/soul must be in alignment with the values and then the behaviors on a personal
level. Imagine each form of intelligence to be a horse pulling the cart. Each horse needs
to see the same road and run in the same direction. Otherwise, the lack of unity would rip
Sustainable Change 18
the cart into pieces. This rationale could be one explanation for the lack of organizational
health in today’s global economy. In the presence of congruence between purpose,
values and beliefs, behaviors and organizational environment, global organizations set the
context for personal and systemic honoring of self and others in all aspects of life
(Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Williams, 1993).
Neuro-Linguistic programming
Neuro-Linguistic programming (NLP) is a form of applied psychology (Balvister &
Vickers, 2004). Founded by Bandler and Grinder at the University of California in the
early 1970’s, it is often described as a user’s manual for how the brain functions. NLP
also seeks to determine brain coding for learning experiences from a cognitive
perspective. Within the neurological levels of the human mind, NLP established 6 levels
of understanding personal change. The concept of an internal iceberg is ideal for seeing
its potential. The top two levels are above the waterline – the environment and behavior.
This is often the smallest part of the iceberg. Above the waterline is where most content-
based systems function, attempting to control behaviors from creating environmental
boundaries. Just below the waterline is the capability or knowledge of a specific
competence. The fourth level is the beliefs and values that drive actions above the
waterline. These values and beliefs are the rules of life while also incorporating one’s
self-belief. Below values and beliefs is the identity level, which includes self-esteem.
Studies have shown that self-esteem plays a crucial role in individual achievement
(Abbeduto, 2006). The sixth and final level of personal change is one’s spirituality and
how it connects every individual to the world as a whole (Balvister & Vickers, 2004).
Sustainable Change 19
VAsys takes into consideration the last 3 and most crucial levels of creating
sustainable change. Starting with the forth level (beliefs and values), VAsys seeks to
obtain personal clarity. Each of the processes within VAsys is designed to increase self-
esteem while elaborating on one’s ability to contribute to the world.
Educational psychology
The greatest theories in the world are useless if the context to learn and apply is not
present. In the typical workplace development/training arena, the lack of consideration in
learning theories creates the honeymoon effect where the learners’ newly gained
knowledge is short-lived (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Furthermore, the use of
“smile sheets” to evaluate many training workshops fall short to creating true learning in
organizations (Keene, 1988; Rossi, 2005).
A working definition of learning that creates organizational success is a relative
permanent change in either behavior or thought (Ormrod, 2006). In order to create the
sustainable change in individuals, each process of VAsys incorporates various methods
and theories such as constructivism and meaningful learning. Many of the tactics
(utilizing constructivism) are designed to engage every individual at the core of their
identity and experience (Steuwe-Portnoff & Steuwe-Portnoff, 1995). Group activities
create a sense of equality and empowerment. By enabling every learner to actively
discover, interpret, and create the basis of their identity based on their cultural and social
contexts, fluid transformations initially occur at the individual system, while expanding
toward the organizational system (Windschitl as cited in Abbeduto, 2006).
Sustainable Change 20
A Contextual System for Sustainable Success
VAsys begins with the individual. Through the 5-step process, individuals learn to
define their tacit values and create congruence between values and behaviors (Williams,
1993). This creates an incredible level of awareness that promotes higher critical
thought. Once the increased awareness of values initiates, a collaborative process builds
organizational values. While the focus of VAsys is a higher awareness at both the
individual and organizational level, global organizations benefit from it as a context for
creating massive organizational change and understanding. This practice enables
sustainable success through the value of people.
Each step of VAsys is an interactive process. The various manifestations of this
process are endless. While it is impossible to lay out the exact details, the following
description provides the context for the intended purpose of each step.
Step 1: Define tacit values
Individual values represent the desired mode of conduct or outcome (Rokeach, 1973).
Values represent what is important to an individual (Balvister & Vickers, 2004). Each
individual has a set of values called the values system. While most individual values
system contains a prioritization of specific values, many people possess contradictory
values (Balvister & Vickers, 2004; Rokeach, 1973). In the event of a situation that
engages opposing values, an internal warfare breaks out. This war creates unnecessary
stress and self-doubt that has a tremendous negative impact in the long run. Can you
imagine the organizational impact? As people within the organization are engaged in an
internal warfare, a reduction in the efficiency in basic decision making will cripple
organizational intellect. Relationships between people fail to build trust. From a systems
Sustainable Change 21
thinking perspective, values systems are a fundamental basic of well-functioning
organizational system. Therefore, a systematic method for understanding one’s self from
an internal perspective is necessary. A smart leader desiring sustainable success would
start with understanding individual values system, since they highly influence individual
behaviors (Meglino, Ravlin & Adkins, 1998; Robbins, 2005; Rokeach, 1973).
The context of understanding values must be neutral. A supervisor/manager
conducting this step may unknowingly influence individual answers. In addition, an
individual living within a specific organizational culture operates with a bias toward the
existing culture. This lack of objectivity can skew the discovery process away from
individual authenticity. Ideally, an outside professional would provide an unbiased
perspective, while having no concept of the existing culture. A facilitator proficient in
leadership theories, educational and organizational psychology and management
principles provides the needed content for such a process.
Within a workshop setting, the facilitator would start with a request for the top fifteen
personal values. A brief discussion would challenge each participant the definition and
meaning of each value. For example, the exploratory research found that money appears
to be high on many leaders’ lists. While it might make logical sense, the challenge in
money as a perceived value is its ultimate purpose. Participants define what the money
will buy. Depending on the responses, the facilitator should ask as many questions as
necessary to reach the terminal values (Robbins, 2005; Rokeach, 1973). In a discussion
with an individual from Saudi Arabia, multiple questions on the value of money led to
family. In her situation, she needed to have the money so that she could marry her
husband. Thus, money was a means to an end.
Sustainable Change 22
Once participants clearly define their top fifteen values, a process of reduction and
prioritizing creates further clarity as they reduce it down to their top 10 values.
Depending on the willingness to be challenged, participants further reduce their top
values anywhere from three to five values, leaving a smaller value set. The process
repeats until a top five is established. With the top five values, participants prioritize
them with a basic numbering system. An extra option allows participations to consider
two separate contexts – the personal/family and the business.
This process of discovery heavily uses Socratic methods. Especially working with
global organizations, basic values such as family and accomplishment are significantly
different from one culture to the next. Both gender roles and cultures have a large impact
on individual values.
Step 2: Create individual congruence
Organizational structures, strategies, and environment are often the focus of
congruence theory (Milliman, Von Glinow & Nathan, 1991; Priem, 1994; Priem &
Rosenstein, 2000). As a proven theory for superior performance, little research exists for
individual application of values with the organizational context (Hofstede, Neuijen,
Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Priem, 1994; Priem & Rosenstein, 2000). Individual
congruence describes the decision process that a person takes to merge their values and
respective action within a specific situation (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). The purpose of
this step is to create an integrated self that is fully aware of his/her values system with
every decision.
During this step, the initial self-analysis intends to reveal individual inconsistencies
between one’s values system and behaviors. Although this is a difficult and perhaps even
Sustainable Change 23
painful process, the lack of congruence stimulates learning and the desire to change
(Hochschild, 1983). As a facilitator, be prepared to address the various emotional
outcomes of this process (Cooper & Sawaf, 1998). Maintaining neutrality toward
emotions, facilitators only act as a mirror and guide participants toward congruence.
Another underlying belief required for this self-efficacy – the belief that an individual
is perfectly capable of performing specific behaviors and arriving at specific goals
(Ormrod, 2006). In many cultures, one’s caste or socioeconomic status bind self-
efficacy. Consideration of those cultural limitations is crucial while taking the appropriate
steps enhance self-efficacy. As the lack of congruence appears in the self-analysis, the
facilitators’ focus on the improvement journey or the learning process enhances self-
efficacy (Ormrod, 2006). This often contrasts many conventional practices as it focuses
on learning rather than the traditional performance indicators in comparison to others
(Seijts & Latham, 2005).
Participants during this step engage in a self-analysis process over a two-three day
period. Each participant takes 15-30 minute snapshots of their activities throughout the
day. These snapshots include the type of activity and the decisions made during that
engagement. Using the list created over multiple days, the analysis starts with simple
time clustering. Participants calculate the number of hours for each activity. For
example, one executive at a major global fashion company found that she spent on
average 36 hours working on business issues, while only 9.5 hours on personal/family
time over three days. This revealed an obvious incongruence as this executive had listed
family as one of her top values. The time difference between work and family illustrates
an alternate value in opposition with the value of family.
Sustainable Change 24
Moving further into the analysis, decision awareness comes after the simple time
clustering. In reviewing one’s decision processes, one might find an unexpected high
level of unconscious decision making that may or may not be in agreement with the
explicit values (Hanson, 2006). Basic decisions within the work environment may reveal
a constant drive to survive in a competitive world while one’s values systems calls for
achievement. Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of motivation, these two values are on the
opposite extreme.
A natural tendency during this step is to “fix” the incongruence. Yet, within the
premise of systems thinking, the goal here is to simply understand the system (Checkland,
1999), not attempt to fix it. As the awareness of daily decisions and actions measured
against one’s values systems increases, the behavior change becomes an automatic
process of achieving equilibrium (Ormrod, 2006).
Step 3: Seek values of others
Globalization has many faces. One of the common challenges perceived by people
within developed countries is that globalization is a threat, rather than an opportunity.
They see people from other countries as thieves for their jobs, while those in power reap
the benefits (Møller, 2004). Such a mentality fails to recognize other people’s sacrifices.
For example, while some Americans are losing their jobs to people in India, many Indian
families are facing a huge cultural conflict between traditional female roles at home and
the new role of working in a call center on America’s time. All over the world, many
minority groups see globalization as a tremendous threat to their cultural identity. Some
have already made a choice to maintain their congruence toward their culture, rather than
sacrifice values for progress in the global economy (Møller, 2004).
Sustainable Change 25
Understanding values of others at the core of their humanity initiates organizational
congruence at the global level. This process seeks a deeper understanding between
people with minimal time investment. Rather than the typical “what do you like to do in
your free time” conversations, these conversations move directly toward the core values.
Before moving into step three, participants walk through a self-analysis of one’s beliefs.
Each participant answers the following questions:
• What is my belief about myself in the role that I play?
• What are my beliefs about people working for me and around me?
• What are my beliefs concerning the relationship that people around me
should have?
These questions challenge each participant to share their beliefs. Depending on the
responses, one may challenge assumptions of certain beliefs such as only organizations’
leaders make tough decisions. The participants need to arrive at a specific fundamental
belief – all organizational members have and can add value to the organization and
treated with respect as another human being.
Adding the characteristics of curiosity and fun into a workshop, participants are asked
to select two different people (subjects of interest) who are present in the workshop
(virtual presence is also acceptable). Ideally, one should be a peer, while another should
be an immediate supervisor or perhaps the CEO of the company. On a blank sheet of
paper, each participant writes down what he/she believes is the chosen subjects of
interest’s top five values. Taking turns, each individual reveals their educated guess of
top five values to his/her subject of interest. A dialog occurs over the next five to ten
minutes between the two individuals to discuss the actual and the perceived values.
Sustainable Change 26
This process of understanding provides room for an individual at any level of the
organization to learn about the values of the leadership. Such a dialog facilitates
reconciliation between those in power and the masses, as well as between individuals
from different cultural backgrounds (Møller, 2004).
Step 4: Create organizational values system
Steps one through three creates the environment for understanding. Once this
environment is established, the collective values of all individuals form the organizational
values system. A simple multi-voting process, along with the help of technology,
solidifies the top values of the organization. The process also calls for fairness as every
individual has equal weight in the multi-voting process. Since every individual has the
opportunity for equal input, acceptance of the system is higher than those that are created
by the marketing or executive teams alone. There is no set number of values, as long as
the values are constantly applied.
This organizational values system is a living entity. As defined by systems thinking,
any system in equilibrium is a death system, with no inputs or outputs. Since
organizations and people are living systems, inputs and outputs are what create the
interconnectedness of systems (Capra, 1996; Checkland, 1999). As individuals enter and
depart the organization, adaptation of the system enables sustainable growth, rather than
an out-of-date document. One active practice for enabling life within the organizational
values system is the regular discussion of values held on a monthly basis. This event
takes place on a team, departmental, or even a divisional level. During the event,
selected individuals would present a single value from the system and discuss its meaning
and application. This simple process has countless benefits on a personal level. More
Sustainable Change 27
important, it actively seeks to align the perceived meaning of values between the
organization and the individual. Research supports this practice and has discovered
greater success in organizations that maintain such a practice. Organizations, who do not,
tend to be more stressful and bureaucratic, with limited financial success (Barrett, 2003).
Step 5: Enable the accountability/self-learning system
In order to create a living, self-healing and self-learning system, an accountability of
checks and balances must exist. From an individual perspective, steps one and two
establish the context for self-learning within the individual system. From an
organizational perspective, the language of the organization needs to lead toward a new
level of accountability. Traditionally, the hierarchical nature of organizations holds
people accountable to external rules and policies. In this system, the accountabilities are
between people, as opposed to roles within a hierarchy. Any individual within the
organization has the potential to ask another individual this crucial question – how does
that behavior reflect the values of the organization?
From an operating perspective, the values accountability system seeks to create
congruence between the values of the organization and the vision, mission and strategies
of the organization. For example, during and after each meeting, one or more individuals
can always ask the question – does the chosen strategy reflect the values of the
organization? Sometimes, even before engaging in a situation, one might ask – is the
team’s engagement reflective of the organization values? If an organization values
abundance and creativity, consider how much money is spent in protecting intellectual
property compared to creating innovation at every level of the organization.
Sustainable Change 28
Evaluating metrics for VAsys include personal and organizational congruence to
one’s organizational values system. On a weekly or monthly basis, a team would track
the number of decisions made in congruence to one’s values. Seeking a balance between
business pressures and congruence to organizational values system, organizational
leaders can transform basic conversations toward inspired conversations. Instead of
asking “how are you?” organizations that value growth or learning would ask, “what have
you learned today?”. By consciously constructing questions based on the values systems,
an organization can effectively enhance the culture on a systemic level. Other metrics
would involve developing a deeper understanding of organizational morale based on
value-based conversations injected into daily actions.
VAsys requires an enormous effort in self-regulation. The simplicity in
organizational evaluation allows every individual to get involved. It also provides room
for countless self-chosen behaviors that is aligned with the values system as well as leads
individuals toward personal standards (Ormrod, 2006). Individuals can also create self-
imposed contingencies that reinforce or punish various behaviors. Due to the common
values established in VAsys, the reflective processes permeate organizational boundaries.
This reflective process would create a spiraling system that always returns to step one of
the VAsys, perhaps on a yearly basis. The toughest aspect of implementation is the
courage in each individual to ask themselves and others the tough questions.
Global applications & Recommendations
VAsys can dramatically affect all three of the top ethical concerns for globalization.
Whether it is the use of child labor, the concerns over human rights and poor working
conditions, a solid contextual system creates a fundamental understand between people
Sustainable Change 29
from various cultures (Guvenli & Sanyal, 2002). For example, a specific U.S. sports
footwear firm created long working hours and toxic environment in factories in under-
developed countries (Cushman, 1998). Imagine the possibility of such decisions if
organizational leaders had a reflective self-accountability structure. Such decisions
would not exist. Furthermore, if meetings to implement such decisions had a VAsys
accountability individual, these working conditions would not pass the benchmark of
values system congruence.
From a legal perspective, lawyers are facing increasing international law suits (Greco,
2006). In order to have justice for all, the content-based legal system must account for
every single culture in the world. This would require more lawyers and researchers. Yet,
using VAsys as a means to understand global organizational conflict, the manifestations
of values judgment fall under a simple accountability structure. Rather than judge
another individual from another culture/country based on one’s “home” laws, individuals
are challenged to seek the basis of actions, rather than judge one’s actions. Especially in
the sensitive topic of intellectual property, the proliferation of knowledge may simply be
a reflection of world abundance, rather than a malicious act to steal and profit. An ethical
challenge in another culture may be to pursue protection blindly. Perhaps, by slowing
down from the fear-based responses, higher order thinking can create a contextual
solution that is sustainable, rather than on a costly case-by-case basis.
Anti-corruption is another major concern for globalization. Conventions such as
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions
attempt to make an impact on corrupt practices. Transparency International (2005) has a
list of country ratings based on corruption. Countries such as Iceland and New Zealand
Sustainable Change 30
are at the top of the scale, while China and Iraq (#78 and #137 respectively) are towards
the bottom. A single practice of creating values alignment between people would
significantly reduce corruption. For example, many clients have adopted a practice of
sharing and aligning values systems at an initial meeting. Before any discussions on
business occur, leaders share and agree on the values that form the relationship. With
such clear guidance, either side is responsible to maintain the values systems congruence.
Conclusion
The implications for VAsys are endless, as it focuses on the values that drive
individual behavior. The contextual system seeks understanding well below the surface
of human behaviors. As leaders learn to openly discuss their values and exhibit those
values through everyday actions, global organizations become healthier organisms, with
minimal corruption, poor working conditions and legal challenges.
Sustainable Change 31
References
Abbeduto, L. (2006). Taking sides: Clashing views in educational psychology (4 th ed.).
Dubuque , IA : McGraw-Hill.
Areeda, P. (1996, March). The Socratic method (Lecture at Puget Sound). Harvard Law
Review, 109(5), 911-923.
Argyris, C. (2002). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Reflections: The SOL Journal,
4(2), 4-16. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from EBSCO Research Database.
Baker, D., Greenberg, C., & Hemingway, C. (2006). What happy companies know: how
the new science of happiness can change your company for the better. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Balvister, S. & Vickers, A. (2004). Teaching yourself NLP. Chicago: Contemporary
Books.
Barchan, M. (2006) Humanity in a Merger. T&D 2(60), p16. Retrieved July 18, 2006,
from database EBSCOhost.
Barrett, R. (2003, September/October). Improve your cultural capital. Industrial
Management, 45(5), 20-24.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Bird, A. & Osland, J. S. (2005/2006, Winter). Making sense of intercultural
collaboration. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 115-
132.
Sustainable Change 32
Boghossian, P. (2006, March). Socratic pedagogy, critical thinking, and inmate
education. Journal of Correctional Education. 57(1), 42-64.
Burd, M., Davies, J., & Silkin, L. (2005, July). Workplace right: the sands of times.
Management Today, 17, 17.
Burns, G. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Doubleday.
Chatman, J. & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and
cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 423-443.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: A 30 year retrospective. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1998). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in business.
Berkley, CA: Berkley Publishing Group.
Cushman, J. (1998, May 13). Nike pledges to end child labor apply U.S. rules abroad,
New York Times, pp. D1, D5.
Doucet, M. (2005, April). 7 Lessons on Working with Asia. Control Engineering, 52(4),
61-65.
Doyle, K.O. (1999), The social meanings of money and property: in search of a talisman,
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Employers raising the bottom line through diversity. (2004, March). Management
Services, 48(3), 6.
Flagg, M. (1999, November 8). Asian bootleggers export their CD expertise, Wall Street
Journal, B17A.
Sustainable Change 33
Fox, C. (2006, June/July). International business negotiator. British Journal of
Administrative Management, (53), 20-22.
Frank, D. G. (2002, January/March). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership
(Book). Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1/2), 81.
French, W.L., Bell C. H. & Zawacki R. A., (2004). Organization development and
Transformation (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:
The Free Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York: Baisc
Books.
Georgas, J., Weiss, L. G., van de Vijer, F. J. R., Saklofske, D. H. (2003). Culture and
children’s intelligence : cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III / edited by James
Publish info Amsterdam, Boston : Academic Press.
Goleman, D. Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership : realizing the power
of emotional intelligence. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Greco, M. S. (2006, June). One world, one profession. ABA Journal, 92(6), 6.
Griffin, G. E. (1997). World without cancer. Westlake Village, California: American
Media.
Guvenli, T. & Sanyal, R. (2002, Summer). Ethical concerns in international business: are
some issues more important than others? Business & Society Review, 107(2), 195-
207.
Hanson, M. J. (2006, July/August). Toward a new assumption in law and ethics.
Humanist, 66(4), 18-21.
Sustainable Change 34
Hillman, J. (1997). The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling. New York:
Warner Books.
Hendricks, G. & Hendricks, K. (1990). Conscious loving: the journey to co-commitment.
New York: Bantam books.
Hochschild. L. E. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hollow protests. (2005, February). Economist, 374(8413), 50-51.
Hostetler, Z. (1992, January). Too many lawyers?: Restoring a sense of community.
ABA Journal, 78(1), 94.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D. & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
Humphreys, J.H., & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: transformational
leadership from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41, 85-95. Retrieved
October 24, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Huy, Q. N. (1999, April). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical
change. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-346.
International Obesity Task Force Data, (2006). IOTF.ORG – International obesity
taskforce. Retrieved on August 3, 2006 from www.iotf.org
Ip, G. (2004, July 8). U.S. wealth tied more to work than productivity, Wall Street
Journal, A.4.
http://www.iotf.org/
Sustainable Change 35
Javidan, M., Stahl, G. K., Brodbeck, F. & Wilderom, C. P., (2005, May). Cross-border
transfer of knowledge: cultural lessons from project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Executive, 19(2), 59-76.
Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Keene, M. R. (1988, June). Training is great, but does it work? ABA Banking Journal, 67-
78.
Kerr, S. (2004, May). Introduction: ethical behavior in management. Academy of
Management Executive, 18(2), 112-113.
Lee, E. (1997).Globalization and labour Standards: A review of issues. International
Labour Review, 136(2), 173–189.
Maierhofer, N. I., Griffin, M. A. & Sheehan, M. (2000, October). Linking manager
values and behavior with employee values and behavior : a study of values and safety
in the hairdressing industry. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(4), 417-
427.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C. & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to
corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to
individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.
Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M. A., & Nathan, M. (1991, April). Organizational life cycles
and strategic international human resource management in multinational companies:
implications for congruence theory. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 318-
340.
Sustainable Change 36
Møller, J. Ø. (2004, January/February). Wanted: A new strategy for globalization.
Futurist, 38(1), 20-26.
Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organizations: the executive edition, abridged. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Moser, P.K., & Vander Nat, A. (1995). Human knowledge: Classical and contemporary
approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mucklow, F. (2000). The Integration of environmental principles in the world bank.
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 9(2), 100-112.
Mycek, S. (2000, October). Culture clash…and how to deal with it. Trustee, 53(9), 6-12.
Ormrod, J (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. (5th edition). Pearson:
New Jersey.
Priem, R. L. & Rosenstein, J. (2000, September/October). Is organization theory obvious
to practitioners? A test of one established theory. Organization Science, 11(5), 509-
527.
Priem, R. L. (1994, August). Executive judgment, organizational congruence, and firm
performance. Organization Science, 5(3), 421-437.
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Essentials of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rossi, J. (2005, May). Putting performance into practice. T+D, 59(5), 18-18.
Sauser Jr., W. I. (2004, April). Teaching business ethics to professional engineers.
Science & Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 337-342.
Sustainable Change 37
Sebenius, J. K. (2002, March), The hidden challenge of cross-border negotiations.
Harvard Business Review.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When should
each be used? Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 124-131.
Solomon, R. C., (1993). The passions: emotions and the meaning of life. Cabridge:
Hackett Publishing.
Steuwe-Portnoff, G. & Stewue-Portnoff, C. (1995). Disciplines as worlds: a constructivist
approach to instruction. Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 5-14.
Stuewe-Portnoff, G. (1988). Loneliness: lost in the landscape of meaning. Journal of
Psychology, 122, 545-555.
Sun, T., Chen, Q., Fang, T., & Liang, S. A. (2000). Tale of two cities-a buying behavior
perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), 156-165.
Super, C. M. (1983). Culture variation in the meaning and use of children’s intelligence.
Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology. AmsterdamL Swets and Zeitlinger.
The world at work. (2000, June). IIE Solutions, 32(6), 8.
Transparency International, (2005). 2005 / cpi / surveys_indices / policy_research / home
– Transparency International. Retrieved on July 20, 2006 from
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005
Tucker, B.A., & Russell, R.F. (2004, Spring). The influence of the transformational
leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111. Retrieved
June 25, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Van Bockern, S. (2006, Winter). Soul-filled teaching and learning. Reclaiming Children
& Youth, 14(4), 218-222. Retrieved on July 18, 2006 from EBSCO database.
Sustainable Change 38
Westra, R. (2006). The Capitalist stage of consumerism and South Korean development.
Journal of Contemporary Asia, 36(1), 3-25.
Whitney, J. O. (1996). The economics of trust. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, L. C. (1993). The congruence of people and organizations: healing dysfunction
from the inside out. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.
Wober, M. (1974). Toward an understanding of Kiganga concept of intelligence. Culture
and cognition: readings in cross-culture psychology. London: Methuen.
World Health Organization, (2002). A Global Response to a Global Problem: the
Epidemic of Overnutrition. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2002, 80(12),
952-958. Retrieved on July 29, 2006 from
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2002/Vol80-No12/bulletin_2002_80(12)_952-
958
Yannaca-Small, C. (1995, February-March). Bribery: the new global outlaw.
Management Review, 49–51.
Zhu, K. & Prosterman, R. (2006, July/August). From land rights to economic boom.
China Business Review, 33(4), 44-49.
-
Introduction
- References
Background
Fear-based Behaviors
Legal Considerations
Cultural Considerations Required
Creating a Balance for Sustainable Changes
Creating sustainable change: Theoretical background
Systems thinking
Transformational leadership
Socratic methods
Multiple intelligences
Neuro-Linguistic programming
Educational psychology
A Contextual System for Sustainable Success
Step 1: Define tacit values
Step 2: Create individual congruence
Step 3: Seek values of others
Step 4: Create organizational values system
Step 5: Enable the accountability/self-learning system
Global applications & Recommendations
Conclusion
image1
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.