Aligning and Propagating Organizational Values

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies Annual Research Conference (SIMSARC13)

Aligning and Propagating Organizational Values Dr (Col.) P.S Jamesa * a

Professor, T.A Pai Management Institute, Manipal, Karnataka

Abstract That organizational values are positively related to performance is well established by works such as ‘Good to Great’ (Collins, 2001) and ‘Built to Last’ (Collins and Porras, 2004). Academic works also show several positive relationship such as 1) organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (Cohen, 2011; Arthaud-Day et al, 2012; Vurgun and Sezai, 2011), 2) organizational culture and job satisfaction (Danuta & Vytautas, 2011), 3) work engagement (Anna et al, 2013), 4) lower burn out (Anna et al, 2013), 5) team performance (Arthaud-Day et al, 2012), 6) organizational learning (Cohen et al, 2011; Cohen & Liu, 2011), and 7) organizational integration (Levent et. Al, 2011). While values are important, whether we align the values of the individual and organization and propagate them adequately to benefit from their positive relationship is not so clear. This study is motivated by the observation that many MBA students could not easily find the values of many good Indian companies and that they could not easily decipher them when tasked to do so as part of their assignment. Auster and Freeman (2013) also found that value-fit in organizations leaves much to be desired. In this work, I examine the question whether organizations match their values to the individual values and whether they propagate their espoused values in an easy to access manner. Using secondary input procured from the web site of companies that figure among the top 25 in the Business Today’s ranking, 2012, I examine these issues by cognitive mapping of the espoused values to the value theory framework (Schwartz, 2006) and find that many organizations do not map their values to the individual values or propagate them in an easily accessible manner. Recommendations are given to mitigate this problem. Keywords: organizational values, cognitive mapping, individual values © B.V. This is an open access B.V. article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2014 2013 Elsevier The Authors. Published by Elsevier (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail address: [email protected]

2212-5671 © 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00180-4

96

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

1. Introduction Contribution to the body of knowledge: This paper examines how effectively top business organizations in India do value mapping to create value congruence between individual and organizational values and effectively they achieve value propagation. Since values are extremely important for sustenance and performance of an organization, the knowledge contributes to enhancing organizational effectiveness. The author uses the value theory framework for this mapping. Teaching a required course of leadership in a premier AACSB accredited business school which has ‘leadership’ as one of the Program Learning Objectives, I had a pleasant surprise while handling one of the student assignments. The assignment required students to evaluate the vision statements of some major Indian companies using Collins and Porras model of vision building, a model which includes core values as one of the important components. The surprise found it difficult to identify the core values of many Indian companies simply because these were not clearly articulated and easily available and they had to come up with inferences drawn from various inputs from the company web sites and other resources rather than procure it through a direct search using key word ‘values’ or ‘core values’ in the search window of the company web site. This made me ask some basic question i.e., do values matter? Are companies proud of their espoused values and if so, do they really announce them from the roof tops? How well aligned are the values of the company and the individual? In this paper I assume that espoused values, distinguished from demonstrated/practiced values, is an essential precondition if values have to be effective. Then I examine the values of top 25 Indian companies as ranked by ‘Business Today’ magazine (BT 500, 2012) from two perspectives. Firstly, I examine whether companies propagate/announce them in a manner that is articulate and easy to identify and secondly I map the key words of their values to themes in the value theory (Schwartz, 2006) through a manual cognitive process to find out whether there is a prima facie case to be concerned about these. Evidence shows that both value propagation and value mapping needs considerable improvement. The question whether values are important is a rhetorical one. Classical works such as ‘Good to Great’ (Colliins, 2001), ‘Built to Last’ (Collins and Porras, 2004), ‘The Leadership Challenge’ (Kouzes & Posner, 2006) and ‘Emerging Value in Health Care: The Challenges for Professionals’ (Dumma, 2010) have all articulated the indispensable role of values. Values are positively related to 1) organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (Cohen, 2011; Arthaud-Day et al, 2012; Levent et al, 2011), 2) organizational culture and job satisfaction (Danuta & Vytautas, 2010), 3) work engagement (Anna et al, 2013), 4) lower burn out (Anna et al, 2013; Dyląg et al, 2013), 5) team performance (Arthaud-Day et al, 2012), 6) organizational learning (Cohen et al, 2011), and 7) organizational integration (Levent et al, 2011). Values are important for for shaping team behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003, p.

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

120), for resolving team conflicts (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2005) and that they influence organizational performance. Intuitively, all of us define values are something that are very close and important to us. We feel guilty when we violate them. Formally, values can be defined as serious and deeply held normative principles which guide a person’s beliefs, attitude and behavior (Lawson, 1989). Values are beliefs, have motivational constructs, transcend specific actions and situations, guide selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people and events and are ordered in their importance (Swhwartz 1994, 2005a, 2006; Allport 1961; Feather, 1995; Inglehart, 1997; Kohn, 1969; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956 and Rokeach, 1973). They involve choosing, prizing and acting (Dudley, 1995). Choosing implies existence of several values from which one selects alternatives with free will and consciousness. Prizing implies the worth we attribute to each value or the pecking order of these values. Acting implies that we operationalize the values through practices. Though values are stable (Rokeach, 1973), our motivation and consciousness are contingent and hence we re-order our values and this makes it dynamic and this enables an individual to align his/her values to the organizational values. The stable yet dynamic nature of values makes them foundation of behavior and identity (Dose, 1999; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998, p. 354). It is also a social science concept used across all social science disciplines (Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989, p.775). They have substantial influence on behavioral responses (Locke, 1976; Rockeach, 1973; Postman, Bruner & McGinnies, 1948; Williams, 1979; Epstein, 1979) and dictate socially desirable conduct or ‘end-states’ of existence” (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995, p. 1076) by creating compulsion to conform to the social values (Kluckhohn, 1951). Because they are socially desirable, we express them publically. These are called ‘espoused values’ (Agryris & Schon, 1978). Espoused values can be differentiated from internalized or demonstrated values (Rousseau, 1990, Schuh & Miller, 2006) which manifest through policies, practices, action and persistent reinforcement (Peters and Waterman, 1982). Moreover, espoused values increase legitimacy and image of an organization (Siehl and Martin, 1990; Sutton and Callahan, 1987) and reputation (Sutton and Callahan, 1987). Hence having espoused values and articulating them in an easily accessible manner is necessary for creating valuefit or value congruence. Since values are endearing and stable, there is an inherent contradiction in realigning them i.e. re-prioritizing them. To do this, the force of organizational values would have to overcome the static force of individual values. Since values result in behavior, value similarity/congruence would result in similar behaviour. It follows that if there is similarity in values of the individual and organization, it would be easier to overcome the static force of stability. Value similarity is important because it creates the social system to achieve common goals (Kluckhohn, 1951), predicts interpersonal interactions, reduce role ambiguity and conflict and leads to greater satisfaction in interpersonal interactions (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983 and Byrene, 1971), all of which are essential for organizational

97

98

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

performance. Values also lead to external adaptation and internal integration (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998). But values required for external adaptation may be very different from those required for internal integration and organizations may interact in highly efficient manner and yet fail to survive (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998). In sum, there could be some inconsistencies in the values that individuals and organizations define for themselves. This makes it difficult but important to create value congruence. People join and leave organizations but the organizations are ongoing entities. Therefore, organizations face the challenge of being a crucible which continuously receives people with different values and then creating congruence. This complexity is increased when we consider that the other stake holder could have contending values and value priorities have to be evolved in an integrated manner (Schwartz, 1996). Articulating the values clearly and in an easily accessible manner helps in creating value congruence. An equally important issue is whether organizations can espouse values so that the individuals and other stake holders can create congruence with ease. There are many ways to approach this e.g., we can identify an individual value frameworks such as terminal and instrumental value framework (Rokeach, 1973) value theory framework (Schwartz, 2006) and align the organizational values to these as much as possible which means that both the organization and the individual adapts to each other’s values. In this essay, we follow the value theory framework to do this. The model proposes that there are ten basic values and these can be divided into five dimensions and three themes. The dimensions of Selfdirection and simulation can be combined to indicate the theme of openness to change, while dimensions of security, conformity and tradition can be combined to indicate the theme of conservation. These are relatively opposed to each other i.e. if the priority of values related to openness to change is high, those related to conservation would be low. Similarly, value of achievement and power indicate self-enhancement theme while its opposite is selftranscendence consisting of benevolence and universalism. Hedonism is a value without any opposing force. The amplification of these values is given in Table 1.

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Table 1: Amplification of values included in value theory framework (Adapted from Schwartz, 2006) Value What it means What behavior can you expect? 1 Openness to Self-Direction Independent in thought Creativity, exploring e.g., Vasco da change and action Gama, researchers. 2 Stimulation Excitement Seeks novel experiences and challenge. E.g., an entrepreneur. 3 conservation Security Safety, stability and Gives and expects assurances, harmony guarantees and written rules. 4 Conformity Restraints actions and Limits actions that may upset inclinations others and social norms 5 Tradition Respect and Accepts customs, religious beliefs commitment to and ways of doing things existing things 6 SelfAchievement Personal success Demonstrates and values enhancement competence and works very hard 7 Power Provides social status Controls and dominates people and prestige e.g., many politicians who are not typically leaders. 8 SelfBenevolence Welfare and goodness Tends to support others and transcendence of others redistributes resources. Protection and welfare of all 9 Universalism Understanding, appreciation and people, nature, sustainability. tolerance 10 Hedonism Pleasure seeking Having fun, entertainment e.g., Google, Southwest Airlines. While there is overwhelming evidence in support of the organizational benefit of values, and espoused values are important, do organizations really ensure that they are articulated in an easily accessible manner? Do they strive to achieve value congruence or do they merely spell out some values and then expect the stake holders to adapt. From the experience of students who were doing the assignment, one suspects whether organizations approach this in a serious manner. Auster and Freeman (2013) also find that application of value-fit is limited in organizational context. When organizations define the values clearly and follow up with practices and actions such as setting goals in alignment with these values, individuals pick up the cues and reprioritize their values to create congruence (Maurino, S. V., & Domenico, S. M. R. D., 2012). It is possible to enhance congruence by aligning the practices to the espoused values (Jolita; Gulbovaite, Evelina, 2012). In this paper, I examine two issues i.e. 1) whether Indian companies make espoused values easily accessible and 2) how well they align are the individual and organizational values using value theory framework. For example innovative organizations should lay much emphasis on selfdirection and stimulation values and correspondingly reduce values related to conservation. While they need to create a balance between self-enhancement and self-transcendence, they cannot focus on the latter at the expense of the former. They can define hedonism related values such as having fun at work and entertainment to augment the innovative culture and mitigate stress invariably related to innovation and change. Similarly organizations which need conservation rather than innovation should pick and choose appropriate values.

99

100

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

In this work, I confine to espoused values and do not address demonstrated values. Nor do I create a hypothesis and test whether the relation between degree of congruence or articulation with performance through rigorous statistical methods. However, I do examine through cognitive mapping and cross tabulation whether there is a prima facie case to examine this issue further, which is the purpose of this research. 2.

Method There are methods for assessing organizational core values (Van Reckom et al, 2006). However since the

purpose is to evaluate whether they are effectively propagated and aligned, the researcher followed the method of collecting secondary data from the web sites of 25 top companies from BT 500 (2012) and adopted manual cognitive mapping. Ease of access was identified as easy and not easy (yes or no). This is an evaluative statement but was based on the following parameters. 



Is it easy for an external person to identify the espoused core values? o

Direct hit on search word ‘values’ or ‘core values’.

o

Easy identification from the obvious pages such as ‘about us’, ‘corporate’, vision, mission’ pages

Is it easy to understand the these values o

Key terms are mentioned.

o

Terms are self-explanatory or are explained if required.

For checking the alignment to value theory, key terms were picked up and fitted into the cross tabulation against the dimensions of value theory (See Table 5. The list of companies given in the table is at random and does not follow the BT ranking). For the purpose of giving weight to these values, forceful key words were selected under each dimension and given a weigh of 2 while other words were given 1. If the term was used in value theory framework (See Table 1), it was given 2. Additionally, a few words were also given the value of 2 based on the context of the use of the term. If a term largely meant the same or was used in a compound sense e.g., ‘innovation and change’, or ‘safety, health and environment’, only one of the key words was given weight and not all. Thus a term like ‘innovation and change would score only two and not four. Similarly, when a large number of key words or values are subscribed to in one dimension, the maximum value was confined to six i.e. as if it had only three key words. See Table 3 for the key words that were given a weight of 2.

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Table 2: Key Words and Weights

3.

Ser No 1 2

Dimension Openness to change Conservation

3

Self-enhancement

4

Self-transcendence

5

Hedonism

Key words given a weight of 2 Change, self-direction, simulation, independence, excitement, Security, conformity, tradition, loyalty, corporate citizenship, avoidance of conflict, stability, harmony, respect, commitment, customs, assurance, norms. Achievement, power, status, prestige, success, challenge, control, dominance, competes, excellence, entrepreneurship Benevolence, universalism, welfare, empathy, understanding, appreciation, protection, support, environmental, sustain, trust etc. Fun, enjoy.

Findings (See Table 4 for details) 

Only 44 per cent of the companies articulate their espoused values in an easy to find manner (11 out of 25).



Only 12 per cent (3 out of 25) describe them as core values.



Openness to change and conservation themes.  No of companies which have included both – 16 (64 percent).  No of companies which have excluded both themes – 6 (24 percent).  No of companies with the theme ‘openness to change’ – 13 (52 percent).  No of companies with conservation as theme – 7 (28 percent)  Most frequent word used is innovation.



Self-enhancement and self-transcendence theme.  No of companies which have included both – 17 (68 percent).  No of companies which have excluded both the themes – 2 (perhaps this ie because the researcher could not trace their values).  No of companies which have included the theme Self-enhancement – 17 (68 percent).  No of companies which have included the theme Self-transcendence – 25 (100 percent).  Merit, challenge, achievement and such emphatic words related to Self-enhancement is seldom used.  Term excellence is the most frequently used term to indicate self enhancement and eight companies have used it.  In Self-transcendence theme, the most frequent term used is ‘respect’ which nine companies have used. Seven companies have used the key word health, safety and environment and perhaps these are directly picked up terms from ISO related activities. Six have used the term integrity and three each have used transparency and empathy.



No one has used hedonism theme.

101

102

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109



The mean of weight for the various dimensions were as follows i.e. weight of all the companies in question for a dimension divided by 25.  Change – 1.2  Conservation – 0.88  Self-enhancement – 1.92  Self-transcendence – 4.04  Hedonism – 0 Table 3: Cross Tabulation of Organizational Values with Dimensions of Value Theory to

Conservation

Self enhancement

Self-transcendence

1

Y

2

N

3

N

4

N

change, learning

3

Corporate citizenship

2

Excellence

2

Quality, research and developme nt

2

Quality, challenge

3

Integrity, respect for the individual, and sharing Health, safety, environment , Human resources development , energy conservation Ethics and org values, safety, health, environment , trust, transparency , mutual concern, customer

6

Environment , sustainabilit y

4

Hedonism

Value Weight

Universalism

Benevolence

Value Weight

Power

Achievement

Value Weight

Tradition

Conformity

Security

Value Weight

Stimulation

Remarks Self-Direction

Are values articulated

Org No

clearly

Openness change

6

Mentions under what they care and not as values

6

Mixed with several other factors such as integrated business, dominant Indian leadership Derived from the vision.

103

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

5

Y

6

Y

7

N

8

N

9

Y

10

Y

11 * 12

N N

13

N

Innovat ion

Innovat ion and speed,

Creativ e solution s, innovati on

2

3

Excellence

Organization al pride, professional pride, devoted

3

Team work, loyalty

3

2

Apolitical, avoid conflict

3

5

6

Client value incl in ST

Culled out from ‘about us’

Excellence, Product leadership, customer focus Excellence, enterprising

4

4

Ethics, environment , sustainabilit y, mutual respect, trust, transparent, customer focus.

6

Entreprene urship, passion,

3

Respect,

2

Relationship , nurture the values and ethos, Law abiding, mutual trust, respect, responsible, mutuality, safety, health, develop people, dignity of

5

Culled out from goals

6

Culled out from principles

1

2

Trusteeship, respect for people, nation orientation Example, integrity, transparency , fairness, Client value Commitment to nation, touching lives of people People

Defend business interest,

2

2

Customer focus incl in ST

104

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

14

Y

Innovat ion

2

Fortitude

1

15

N

Innovat ion, learning

3

Entreprene urial,

2

16 *

N

17

N

18

Y

19 *

N

20

Y

Innovat ion, agility

3

Excellence, speed, product focus

4

individual, consultative, governance, socially responsible, environment al, fair competition, integrity. Not win at any cost, respect, trust, environment , empathy, integrity Customer satisfaction, empowered, caring, trust, Customer service, upgrade employee skills Nil

Inclusion, accountabilit y, customer, environment

6

6

Culled out from vision Culled from objectives.

Not included in vision or mission either 5

Unable to trace vision, mission or values from the web site Innovat ion

2

Security

2

Self-belief, confidence, passionate

3

Teamwork, helping, listening, sharing, caring, empathy, culturally sensitive, health,

6

105

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

21

Y

Innovat ion (creativ ity, learning , flexible , change)

3

Pride, dedication, commitment

3

Passion, (inspiration , ownership, zeal and zest)

3

22

Y

Innovat ion

2

Loyalty, commitment

2

Excellence

2

23

N

Innovat ion

2

security

2

Inspiring

2

24

Y

5

25

N

Entreprene urship, growth, excellence, Perfection, speed, excellence

Innovat ion

2

Commitment

Mean 1.2 Note: * indicate inability to trace the data.

4.

2

.88

4

1.92

safety, accountable Care (concern, empathy, understandin g, cooperation, and empowerme nt), trust (delivering promises, reliability, dependabilit y, integrity, truthfulness, transparency ). Integrity, , teamwork, governance, respect, Nurturing, empowering, healthy, safety, environment Trust, sustainabilit y Safety, health, environment ,

6

6

6

4

2

Culled out from TPM policy and safety, health and Environme nt policy

4.04

Conclusion

Although almost all companies have espoused values, many of them do not communicate them in an easily accessible manner. Hence prima facie there is an obstacle to internalizing them. It is easy to solve this problem and requires negligible resources.

106

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Organization need both change and conservation and therefore, they should normally have values from both these themes. Though there could be bias for one against the other, ignoring any one of themes and worse still, both is inadvisable. 24 percent of the top 25 companies of BT 500 skipping these themes altogether and many others not balancing them suggest that in general, Indian companies need to do more on this area. The values of the companies are clearly skewed towards Self-transcendence than Self-enhancement which can hamper the competitive spirit of companies. Though all of them are doing well (that is why they are in the top of BT 500), the question is whether they are living upto their potential. Though current generation of young working professionals like to have fun and entertainment in the work place and several innovative companies like Google and Southwest Airlines vouch by it, it came as a surprise that no companies in the top of BT 500 included it as a value. Perhaps they are missing some good opportunity here. Mapping of the organizational values to the value theory indicates that while creating the values, organization tend to skip the mapping process.

As a result, companies could be missing out on

opportunities.

Prima facie there is reason to investigate the problem in greater depth by including a larger sample and using more rigorous statistical methods. References Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley. Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Anna, Dyląg., Magdalena, Jaworek, Karwowski, Waldemar., Małgorzata, Kożusznik., & Tadeusz, Marek. (2013). Discrepancy between individual and organizational values: Occupational burnout and work engagement among white-collar workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Vol. 43 Issue 3, p225-231. Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 792-807. Auster, E. R., & Freeman, R. E. (2013). Values and Poetic Organizations: Beyond Value Fit Toward Values Through Conversation. Journal of business ethics, vol 113, Issue 1, p39-49. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220 Business Today Top 500 Indian companies retrieved on August 01, 2013 from http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/bt-500-tcstops-the-list-for-2012/1/189141.html. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Presss. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. HarperCollins. Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperCollins.

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Culture Vurgun, Levent; Öztop, Sezai. (2011). Significance of Values for Management and Organizational Culutre. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences. Vol. 16 Issue 3, p217-230. Cohen, A., Rosenblatt, Z., & Buhadana, T. (2011). Organizational Learning and Individual Values The Case of Israeli Civil Service Employees. Administration & Society, 43(4), 446-473. Cohen, A., & Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and individual values, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among Israeli teachers. International Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 271-287. Danuta, Diskienė., & Vytautas, Goštautas. (2010). Relationship between individual and organizational values and employees' job satisfaction. Current Issues of Business & Law. Vol. 5 Issue 2, p295-319 retrieved on August 05, 2013 from EBSCO. Dose, J. J. (1999). The relationship between work values similarity and team member and leader-member exchange relationships. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 20–32. 2. Dudley, Roger L. (1995). "Anatomy of Value", The 1995 Book Health and Home, National Journal for Better Living, Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 12; 33; 35-36. Dumma, M. (2010). Emerging values in health care: The challenge for professionals. B. Hannigan, S. Pattison, R. Pill, & H. Thomas (Eds.). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Dyląg, A., Jaworek, M., Karwowski, W., Kożusznik, M., & Marek, T. (2013). Discrepancy between individual and organizational values: Occupational burnout and work engagement among white-collar workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Vol. 43 Issue 3, p225-231 Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(7), 1097-1126. Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences. and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1135-1151. Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of applied psychology, 68(2), 320-333. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1075-1104.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2005). The impact of cultural value diversity on multicultural team performance. In D. L. Shapiro, M. A. VonGlinow, & J. L. Cheng (Eds.). Advances in international management (Vol. 18, pp. 33–67). London:Elsevier.

107

108

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp.388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and conformity. Homewood, Il.: Dorsey Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The leadership challenge (Vol. 3). Wiley. com. Lawson, Kay. (1989). Human Polity: An Introduction to Political Science. Boston, HoughtonMifflin Company. Reprinted by KEN Incorporated, Quezon City: Philippines Levent, Vurgun,. Sezai, Öztop., & Demirel, Suleyman. (2011). Significance of Values for Management and Organizational Culture. University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences. 2011, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p217-230 retrieved through EBSCO on August 25, 2013 and translated. Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M.D Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Maurino, S. V., & Domenico, S. M. R. D. (2012). Realization of personal values in the organizational environment (RVP): looking at the relationships between individuals and organization beyond the personal values. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 13(3), 177-213. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1992). The measurement of work value congruence: A field study comparison. Journal of Management, 18(1), 33-43. Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389. Morris, C.W. (1956). Varieties of human value. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peters, T and Waterman, R (1982). In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper and Row. Postman, L., Bruner, J. S., & McGinnies, E. (1948). Personal values as selective factors in perception. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43(2), 142. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities, 1968–1981. American Psychologist, 44(5), 775. Rousseau, D M (1990). “Assessing Organizational Culture: The Case for Multiple Methods,” in B Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 153-192. Siehl, C and Martin, J (1990). “Organizational Culture: A Key to Financial Performance?” in Schneider, B (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 241-281. Sutton, R I and Callahan, A C (1987). “The Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled Organizational Image and its Management,” Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 405-436. Schuh, A M and Miller, G M (2006). “Maybe Wilson Was Right: Espoused Values and Their Relationship to Enacted Values ,” International Journal of Public Administration, 29(9), 719-741. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal asects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

109

P.S. James / Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014) 95 – 109

Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8 (pp.1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwartz, S. H. (2005a). Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations] pp. 21-55. Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes. Schwartz,

S.

H.

(2006).

Basic

human

values:

an

overview.

Unpublished

manuscript

accessed

from

http://151.97.110.134/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-05/Schwartzpaper.pdf on August 20. 2013. Van Reckom, J; Van Riel, C B M and Weiringa, B (2006). “A Methodology for Assessing Organizational Core Values,” Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 175-202 Jolita, Vveinhardt., & Evelina, Gulbovaite, (2012). Congruence between Personal and Organizational Values. Management Theory & Studies for Rural Business & Infrastructure Development., Vol. 30 Issue 1, p213-221. Williams, R. M., Jr. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A sociological perspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.) Understanding human values (pp. 15-46). New York: Free Press.