1

Conceptual paper

Snakes and ladders: navigating the territory of

values-led leadership

Dr. Sarah Lee

Professor Malcolm Higgs

Southampton Business School

University of Southampton

Highfield Campus

Southampton

Hampshire SO17 1BJ

Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 5477

Email: sl3@soton.ac.uk

2

Snakes and ladders: navigating the territory of values-led leadership

Abstract

Personal and societal values – or the lack of them – are the frequent subject of media

attention and popular debate. Rallying cries for a return to “traditional” values are made

with scant insight into the nature and development of values and the complexities of values

change in practice. In the organisational arena, values have become a familiar part of

leadership discourse, not only in those leadership forms that may be loosely coupled under

the terms values-led or “values-based” leadership (Kraemer, 2011), such as ethical and

authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and Trevino, 2006), but also in connection

with the burgeoning literature on corporate social responsibility (see Aguinis and Glavas,

2012) and responsible leadership (Stahl and De Luque, 2014; Crilly et al., 2008; Waldman

and Galvin, 2008). Yet questions remain about the nature of personal and organisational

values and their role in leadership development and practice.

Although values are often implied in normative leadership models, they are actually

expressed in terms of personal characteristics, behaviours and virtues. For instance, Hind et

al. (2009) identified thirty attributes of [ethical] responsible leaders from the literature,

which include personal qualities, such as honesty and trustworthiness; and behaviours, such

as willingness to act on criticism and not making unrealistic demands on self and others. The

different types of variables and the different ways in which they are measured, present

challenges for those interested in adopting a values perspective to leadership research.

Furthermore, the prime focus of much writing on authentic, ethical and transformational

leadership remains rooted in the “heroic” or “larger-than-life” (Meindl et al., 1985)

archetype, in relation to the character and behaviour of executive leaders (e.g. George,

2003). However, unlike chief executives, those at lower levels of the organisation may not

have the authority to act on their values and principles, nor feel the freedom to be their

“true self” at work. It may be intuitively appealing to act in accordance with higher [ethical]

principles, but in reality, normative pressures and other situational factors intervene. When

3

faced with a difficult decision and multiple, competing pressures, values, as abstract

conceptions of the desirable (Kluckhorn, 1951), may not suggest a clear way forward.

In this paper, we argue that in order to move beyond the prescriptive and often rhetorical

language that all too often features in writing on values and leadership, further conceptual

development and research needs to include more systematic consideration of values, and

the ways in which they can support or inhibit leadership practice in contemporary

organisations. We examine key elements of the personal values literature and recognise the

problematic nature of the field. We then outline the relevance of values to a number of

leadership forms, and distinguish between personal and organisational values. In the course

of the discussion we focus on two areas in particular which, we suggest, are important to

developing and refining our understanding of the values-led leadership territory: (i) Should

values-led leaders enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are

the leadership implications when organisations fail to live up to their values? Based on the

issues raised in the paper, we conclude by suggesting opportunities for further exploration

and research.

By highlighting some of the conceptual and practical challenges, this paper speaks to the

contemporary debates on values and leadership from both conceptual and practice

perspectives. In navigating this promising and developing field, researchers and

practitioners face the challenge of avoiding the “snakes”, in the form of theoretical and

practical difficulties with the values concept, and to recognise the “ladders” that represent

genuine opportunities to further understanding and to benefit values-led practice.

4

Introduction

The recognition that values are important, linked in some way to behaviours and feelings,

and of relevance of our understanding of what it is to be human is signified by their

occurrence in popular debate in a range of contexts. The values and behaviour of politicians,

public figures and executives have come under increasing media scrutiny over the last

decade. Equally, in organisational scholarship, values have become a familiar part of the

leadership discourse, not only in relation to those leadership forms that may be loosely

coupled under the terms values-led or “values-based” leadership (Kraemer, 2011), such as

ethical and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and Trevino, 2006), but also in

connection with the burgeoning literature on corporate social responsibility (see Aguinis

and Glavas, 2012) and responsible leadership (Stahl and De Luque, 2014; Crilly et al., 2008;

Waldman and Galvin, 2008). Yet questions remain about the nature of personal and

organisational values and their role in leadership development and practice.

We begin by examining the problematic nature of the personal values concept and then

consider its application to “values-led” forms of leadership and to organisations. This helps

to clarify the distinction between leaders’ personal values, espoused and enacted

organisational values and the idea of shared values. In the course of the discussion we focus

on two areas in particular which, we suggest, are important to developing and refining our

understanding of the values-led leadership territory: (i) Should values-led leaders enable

followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are the leadership

implications when organisations fail to live up to their values? In relation to these questions,

we suggest the practical implications for leadership development and practice, informed by

our own research in organisations that espouse a strong, values-based culture. We conclude

with areas of future research on the topic of values and leadership.

5

Personal values theory: the “problem” with values

Conceptual and definitional issues

Reviews of values literature (for example, Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000; Meglino

and Ravlin, 1998) emphasise the problematic nature of the field. Calls for a universally

agreed definition of the values construct have been made by values scholars over a number

of decades (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000; Connor and Becker, 1979; Kluckhorn,

1951) . While a number of suggestions have been put forward (Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach,

1973; Allport, 1961; Kluckhorn, 1951), different theoretical approaches within fields such as

psychology, sociology, philosophy and political science have contributed to what Erickson

(1995, p.123) calls “the profusion of definitions-by-discipline” and separate streams of

research. Moreover, values are often conflated with attitudes, traits, norms, needs,

ideologies and beliefs (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Rohan and Zanna, 2001). This implies that

research relating to other constructs may be pertinent to values without actually using the

term (Rohan, 2000). Even within values research, as Higgs and Lichtenstein (2009) point out,

there is a proliferation of value taxonomies and survey instruments, such as the Schwartz

Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992); the List of Values (Kahle, 1996); Rokeach’s Value Survey

(Rokeach, 1973) and proprietary measures. Becker and Connor (1994) also raise the issue

that values are conceived and measured at different levels, such as person, group, society or

culture, and with varying degrees of specificity, such as work values, moral values or general

values.

Values are popularly conceived as timeless, guiding principles, linked in some way to

behaviours and feelings, and fundamental to our understanding of what it is to be human

(Rohan, 2000). A person’s idiosyncratic set of value priorities may be regarded as in some

way expressive of his or her identity, giving a sense of coherence over time and across

situations. Indeed, Maslow (1962) states that the search for identity is effectively a search

for one’s intrinsic and authentic values. Values are experienced as “deeply propriate”

(Allport, 1961’, p. 454) even though they are socially patterned and communicated.

However, the self-expressive nature of values is only one facet of the values concept.

6

Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) list five characteristics of values commonly found in the

psychological literature: (i) they are cognitive concepts or beliefs, (ii) refer to desirable end

states or behaviours, (iii) transcend specific situations, (iv) guide the selection and

evaluation of behaviour and events, and (v) are ordered by relative importance. As “criteria

or standards of preference” (Williams, 1979, p.16) values guide people’s judgement about

desirable or undesirable ways of behaving, and about the desirability or otherwise of

general goals.

Although generally conceived as cognitive structures, it is clear that values have strong,

positive emotional associations. Kluckhorn (1951, p.400) speaks of “the union of reason and

feeling inherent in the word value” and, more recently, Hitlin (2003, p.132) describes values

as “emotion-laden conceptions of the desirable”. We feel attached to our values, and

indeed inducing people to consider logically the reasons why they place importance on a

particular value can result in value change (Maio and Olson, 1998).

The relationship between values and behaviour

Experimental research has identified a connection between value preferences and preferred

courses of action (Feather, 1996; Feather, 1995), and yet the relationship between values

and behaviour remains controversial. Nevertheless, the idea that values shape attitudes and

behaviour has captured the popular imagination, including that of writers on organisational

culture and leadership, whether in pursuit of profit maximisation or wider ethical concerns.

Rokeach (1968) argues that values constitute the organising principles for thousands of

beliefs and attitudes. His view that values directly affect attitudinal and behavioural

outcomes underpins the values-confrontation approach to attitude and behaviour change

(Rokeach, 1973). However, Kristiansen and Hotte (1996) comment that the notion of values

as guiding forces for more specific attitudes and behaviour is intuitively appealing but

difficult to demonstrate empirically. Their critique of Rokeach’s (1973) studies concludes

that the relations between values, attitudes and behaviours are often small, and Murray et

al. (1996) point out the largely correlational nature of the work. Studies using Schwartz’s

value structure have specified certain conditions under which values affect behaviour

7

(Verplanken and Holland, 2002; Murray et al., 1996) but these generally focus on single

value priorities operating under experimental conditions. Nevertheless, as we explain later

in the chapter, the idea that values shape attitudes and behaviour has proved enticing to

writers on organisational culture and leadership, whether in pursuit of profit maximisation

or wider ethical concerns.

Values measurement

The dominant paradigm in values research is based on the use of quantitative methods,

survey instruments and experimental approaches. Undoubtedly, however, values research

has been hugely facilitated and given impetus by the development and validation of a

universal structure of values and associated measures (Schwartz, 1992). In Schwartz’s

theory, values are classified into ten types (re-classified into nineteen, more granular types

in his most recent work (Schwartz et al., 2012)), each representing a cluster of single values,

based on the overarching motivational goal they express. His model, shown in Figure 1

below, represents the value types in a circular structure, which depicts the relationships

between them. Values which express complementary motives are placed in adjacent

positions, and values that express conflicting motives are placed opposite each other.

Self-Direction Universalism

Benevolence

Stimulation

Hedonism

Achievement

Power Security

Conformity

Tradition

Self-transcendence

Conservation

Openness to change

Self-enhancement

8

Figure 1: Schwartz's universal value structure, adapted from Schwartz (1992)).

Two motivational dimensions are also shown in Figure 1 above, which describe higher order

value types or orientations. One dimension contrasts self-enhancement values, which

promote self-interest, with self-transcendent values, which emphasise the welfare of others.

The second contrasts conservation values, which focus on certainty and the status quo, with

openness values, which are concerned with pursuit of self-directed interests in

unpredictable or uncertain directions. Although the structure of values is universal, people

differ in the priority they assign to particular values. An individual’s set of value priorities is

termed their personal value system (Rohan, 2000).

The model in Figure 1 above helps to demonstrate the inevitability of conflict between

values, whether or not a particular event is experienced as an ethical or moral dilemma.

Schwartz’s values structure represents “the relations of conflict and compatibility among

values” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 3), and the higher order value types (openness to

change/conservation and self-interest/self-transcendence) represent polar opposite

orientations. Individuals must make choices about the relative importance of different and

potentially competing values, and these choices represent trade-offs or concessions – giving

priority to a particular value at the expense of another (Tetlock, 1986). Schwartz (1996, p. 2)

asserts that values are likely to be activated and to enter awareness in the presence of

values conflicts. Such conflicts are essentially discrepancies between two cognitions,

resulting in dissonance or unpleasant psychological tension which, according to Festinger’s

cognitive dissonance theory (1957), the individual is motivated to resolve. However, this

does not necessarily mean that the conflict can be dissipated with no personal cost:

confronting values conflicts may involve making a choice supportive of one or more values

but opposed to others which are also important to the individual.

It is worth noting here that value conflicts may also result from a discrepancy between

personal value system priorities and an individual’s perception of the value priorities of

others – termed social value systems (Rohan, 2000). While people have only one personal

value system, they are likely to have multiple social value systems, such as work team and

9

organisation. Faced with such a conflict, people must decide whether to conform to others’

expectations (social value system priorities) or to their personal value system priorities. This

is particularly relevant in the organisational context, where perceived organisational values

(or the lack of them) and cultural expectations clash with an employee’s personal value

priorities.

Relating abstract values to concrete experience

In spite of the significant advances in our understanding of values made possible by

Schwartz’s theory (reviewed in Schwartz, 2011), we suggest that the meaning that values

hold for individuals, and the operation of values in real-life contexts, may have been

overlooked as a consequence of the survey methods which are typically used in to measure

personal value priorities divorced from situated experience.

In their theoretical model, Robertson and Callinan (1998) portray values as one of a number

of variables involved in cognitive-affective mediating processes which, together with a

number of other fixed or situational factors, influence behaviour. However, it is difficult to

isolate the role of values, as opposed to other variables. Furthermore, In exploring “real-life”

events and experiences, a key difficulty for researchers is to relate values, which are

abstract cognitions (Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach, 1973), to context-specific attitudes and

situationally-based behaviours. Values may be regarded as latent variables: they are not

observable and thus we can only make inferences about values manifested in action

(Hechter, 1993; Kluckhorn, 1951) or rely on people’s conscious awareness of their values

and their ability or willingness to articulate them. This leads to a further problem: a number

of researchers indicate that values often operate implicitly, guiding behaviour effortlessly,

with little or no conscious awareness (Schwartz, 1996; Feather, 1995; Sagiv and Schwartz,

1995). Seeking values-based explanation of behaviours or attitudes may only elicit “truisms”,

which lack cognitive support, and are used as socially or personally acceptable ways of

justifying actions or attitudes (Maio et al., 2001; Maio and Olson, 1998).

10

Having explored the conceptual and practical issues associated with personal values

research, we now turn to values in the leadership and organisational context. In drawing

together the different streams of literature that connect values and leadership, we highlight

two issues in particular and consider their implications for research and practice: (i) Should

values-led leaders enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work?; and (ii) What are

the leadership implications when organisations fail to live up to their values?

Personal values and leadership

The personal values of [top] leaders, and the way in which these are used to shape the

values of the organisation and the behaviour of employees, are common features of a

number of leadership frames of reference, particularly in connection with leadership

influencing processes (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Sosik, 2005; Lord and Brown, 2001; Shamir

et al., 1993). In charismatic leadership, for example, the values invoked by [top] leaders

form part of their compelling vision of the organisation, motivating followers and enhancing

trust, commitment and performance (Conger et al., 2000; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Boal

and Bryson, 1988). Role-modelling values-congruent behaviour is a key facet of leadership

behaviour in this and other leadership frameworks, including ethical and transformational

leadership.

However, in common with the personal values literature, such normative models of

leadership tend to conflate values with other concepts, such as behaviours, virtues and

character traits. This terminological “looseness” and differing levels of abstraction make it

difficult to make systematic comparisons between leaders and between settings. Moreover,

the concomitant, dominant focus on the personal values of top leader figures, rather than

on shared or distributed forms of leadership (Pearce et al., 2011; Yukl, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006;

Gronn, 2002), means that scant attention is given to the potentially competing value

priorities among leaders (and followers) at all levels of the organisation, and to their

implications.

11

The idea of values-led or values-based leadership suggests an association with those

leadership frames of reference which are concerned with acting on personal values and

convictions, such as ethical and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Brown and

Trevino, 2006); or with service to others, wisdom and connection with humanity, such as

servant and spiritual leadership (Karakas, 2010; Liden et al., 2008; Fry, 2003; Spears and

Lawrence, 2002). These typically emphasise leader attributes such as humility, capacity for

self-reflection, integrity and respect for others. For example servant leadership stresses

personal integrity and focuses on forming long-term relationships with employees and

stakeholders outside the organisation, including communities and society as a whole (Liden

et al., 2008). These elements are reflected in Kraemer’s (2011) four principles of “values-

based” leadership, which comprise self-reflection, balance and perspective, true self-

confidence and genuine humility. Similarly, conceptions of authentic leadership (Walumbwa

et al., 2008; Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; May et al., 2003) describe

leaders who act in accord with their values, making balanced and principled decisions rather

than acting for political ends or to conform to others’ expectations (George et al., 2007; Ilies

et al., 2005). Here, the emphasis is on remaining true to one’s self and one’s principles in

order to do what is right.

The literature on values-led forms of leadership tends to focus on the moral and ethical

aspects of behaviour and decision-making, and the - arguably – “good” or ethically desirable

values associated with the self-transcendence dimension of Schwartz’s (1992) model.

However, the focus of this and other CSR research is restricted typically to ethical values

rather than the leader’s personal value system as a whole – that is, the entire spectrum of

values. For example, Crilly et al.’s (2008) survey of middle managers in five multinational

corporations found that self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence),

increased the propensity to engage in socially responsible behaviours. Corporate social

responsibility (CSR) research has linked leader deontological ethical values (i.e. altruism and

universalism) with follower beliefs in the stakeholder view of CSR (Groves and LaRocca,

2011). There is a need to take account of the priorities assigned to the other – often

opposing – value types, and to examine the way in which these priorities operate in

12

leadership contexts. For example, leaders who place a high priority on values associated

with achievement, self-direction and recognition for success, and those who value new

experiences and challenge convention, surely have much to contribute to the organisation

and its stakeholders.

Authenticity and personal values fulfilment

In contrast with the leadership frames of reference described above, Hitlin (2003, p.123)

does not ascribe a moral valence to particular values. He comments that personal values

and identity are linked at the theoretical level through the concept of authenticity – “we feel

authentic when we are acting in accordance with our values”. Harter’s (2002, p.382)

definition of authenticity as acting “in accord with the true self, expressing oneself in ways

that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings” evokes humanistic perspectives of the

self as an innate, unified motivational force seeking fulfilment of potential and self-

actualisation (Maslow, 1970; Rogers, 1961). Kernis’ (2003) influential four component model

of authenticity includes awareness of one’s needs, values and feelings, and action that is in

accord with one’s values, preference and needs. From an individual perspective, then,

thinking in terms of values – and acting “authentically” in accordance with them - enables a

sense of self-esteem and well-being (Kernis and Goldman, 2006) rather than feeling

constrained by externally imposed rules and norms.

In self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1995), behaviours are conceived as varying in

the extent to which they experienced as autonomous and authentic. An essential

proposition of self-determination theory is the psychological desirability of behaviour which

is experienced as intrinsically motivated and in accord with an integrated and coherent self.

Behaviours undertaken to avoid sanction or to gain (extrinsic) reward or recognition are

least conducive to self-actualisation and healthy psychological functioning (Ryan and Deci,

2002). Of course, individuals rarely have complete freedom to choose their activities –

particularly in organisational settings (Gagné and Deci, 2005). However, SDT also

emphasises the importance of the social context (e.g. the organisation) in helping or

hindering the individual’s ability to act with autonomy and self-integrity.

13

We therefore suggest that, in relation to our second question, values-led leaders do indeed

to consider how they can enable followers to fulfil their personal values at work.

Safeguarding the health and safety of employees is of course, at its basic level, a legally

defined obligation for organisations and their leaders. However, the theoretical and

empirical linkages between values fulfilment and psychological well-being suggests a deeper

level of responsibility to engage with employees at the level of their personal value priorities.

Concern for the values of others is highlighted by Kraemer (2011) as characteristic of value-

based leaders. He connects this concern with “balance and perspective”, which, he argues,

is a key principle of values-based leadership. Not only do leaders listen willingly to others’

viewpoints in order to develop well-rounded opinions, but also, Kraemer (ibid.) suggests,

they want to discern the personal values that lay behind their views.

Enabling personal values fulfilment: leadership implications

The foregoing discussion has immediate practical implications for managers in the context

of skills and career development discussions with reportees, but also for organisation-wide

human resource management processes. A starting point is the recognition that no one set

of value priorities is intrinsically any better than others, and the acceptance that, within an

overarching conception of shared organisational values, there is room for different personal

value priorities, reflecting a range of individual aspirations and needs. Of course, taken to

extreme, a desire for power, self-gratification and success at the expense of others is

associated with narcissistic tendencies and the dark side of leadership (Aasland et al., 2008;

Conger, 2007). However, Meglino and Ravlin (1998) point out that the type of values which

support interpersonal co-operation and group cohesion may be at odds with the type of

values required for organisational survival. Similarly, employees with value priorities such as

self-respect, influence, capability, curiosity, creativity and ambition, all of which lie outside

the “ethically desirable” (Fritzsche and Oz, 2007; Mumford et al., 2003) self-transcendence

value dimension (Schwartz, 1992), have much to offer either as “values-led” leaders or

followers.

14

A second specific implication for values-led leaders is the shift in emphasis from measures

that identify performance weaknesses or undesirable behaviour and attitudes, towards

finding out people’s values – not in order to improve them but rather to understand them. If,

as Rohan (2000) suggests, people’s value priorities represent their personal view of best

possible living, then finding ways for employees to fulfil their potential surely involves asking

about what they value and exploring ways in which they can meet their needs and

aspirations at work. In addition, given the close association between values and the self

(Hitlin, 2003), encouraging employees (and leaders) to reflect on their value priorities helps

to develop their capacity for self-reflection and self-awareness. Self-reflection is a key

principle of values-based leadership (Kraemer, 2011) and developing self-awareness or

personal insight is important for authentic leadership development (Gardner et al., 2005, p.

347).

For prospective employees, the possibility of working for an organisation whose values and

working practices align with, or allow fulfilment of, personal values and standards is an

attractive one, promising a sense of mutuality, purpose and identity at work (O'Reilly et al.,

1991). Indeed, individuals are attracted to (and selected by) organisations of the basis of

their fit with its characteristics and culture, including its values (Schneider et al., 1995;

Schneider and Alderfer, 1973). This leads us to consider the relevance of organisational

values to leadership.

Organisational values and leadership

Organisational values are relevant to the values-led leadership arena because of their

ascribed normative influence on employee behaviour, and the leader’s role in this

influencing process. Writers in the “culture-excellence” tradition regard [shared]

organisational values as a powerful lever in the development of a cohesive culture. Peters

and Waterman (1982) specifically refer to values as representing the core of corporate

culture, and they associate such values with corporate success. On the one hand, values

may be regarded simply – and cynically - as normative devices deployed in culture

15

management programmes to focus employee effort in support of organisational success,

measured by stakeholder return. On the other hand, values that are publicly stated and,

crucially, personally enacted by organisational leaders may equally represent a genuine

commitment to “do good” behaviour (Stahl and De Luque, 2014, p. 238) directed at a range

of stakeholders.

According to Schein (1997) the personal values of an organisation’s founder or top leader

are transformed into shared values through collective experience of their effectiveness, and

these may over time be incorporated into shared basic assumptions. The “top-down”

approach to establishing an ethical culture tends to assume that organisational values,

articulated by the top leader, can be shared by all employees in order to produce consistent

responses to ethical issues. However, Pearce (2014) remarks that most leaders overestimate

the degree to which vision and values are truly shared. Based on our own research in a

range of organisations that espouse a “values-led” culture (Lee, 2015), employees identify

more strongly with organisational values where these manifestly align with the top leader’s

own behaviour, and where this leader is charismatic, accessible and seen as an inspirational

role-model. Conversely, where there are multiple layers of hierarchy, and where the

organisation’s values have been imposed or inherited from a parent company, there is a

greater tendency for employees to perceive the top leaders as failing to live up to the values,

leading to cynicism and lack of trust.

Measuring the level of congruence between organisational values and employee values is

central to person-organisation values fit research. (Meyer et al., 2010; Cable and Edwards,

2004; Chatman, 1991, p. 450), which is also used by some researchers as an indication of the

strength of an organisation’s culture (O'Reilly et al., 1991). It is important to be clear about

what type of fit is being measured: perceived (subjective) fit, which is the congruence

between an employee’s values and his or her perception of the organisation’s values; or

actual (objective) fit, which compares the employee’s values with the organisation’s values

as assessed by a subset of its employees (Edwards and Cable, 2009). However, when

personal values surveys are also used to assess perceived organisational values in order to

16

assess fit, we question the relevance of some of these values, e.g. the hedonism and self-

direction value types, to the organisational context. Nevertheless, empirical studies have

established a positive relationship between both types of values fit and organisational

citizenship behaviours, teamwork and [self-reported] tendencies toward ethical behaviour

(Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Kristof, 1996), all of which may be regarded as desirable

responsible leadership outcomes. Yet the issue remains that the stated or “official” values of

the organisation may differ from its actual or enacted values.

Espoused and enacted values and breaches of organisational integrity

An organisation’s stated or espoused values represent its stated commitment to a way of

working and engaging with stakeholders and, in many cases, with wider society. In practice,

the organisation’s espoused values all too often differ from the values implicit in day-to-day

organisational decisions and actions – its enacted values (Rohan, 2000; Argyris, 1990).

Organisations that fail to enact their stated values are likely to undermine the credibility of

the values themselves in the eyes of employees, diminishing their anticipated positive

effects on outcomes such as employee commitment and motivation. Cha and Edmondson’s

(2006) research in an advertising firm found that employees made attributions of hypocrisy

when they perceived the CEO had acted inconsistently with his espoused values, and the

authors suggested that the results of this “negative sensemaking” (ibid., p.73) process were

likely to undermine the positive effects of strong organisational values, which are indicated

by charismatic leadership research.

Consistency between espoused and enacted values perhaps feels desirable because it is

associated with the concept of integrity, which is generally regarded as “a good thing” (Audi

and Murphy, 2006; Koehn, 2005). Indeed, integrity is the value most frequently included in

corporate values statements and is found regularly in company mission statements and

codes of conduct (Audi and Murphy, 2006). We adopt here Palanski and Yammarino’s (2009)

definition of organisational integrity as word-action consistency, which specifically includes

enacting stated values and keeping promises. There is thus a double irony should an

organisation that includes integrity in its formal values statement then fail to live up to its

17

own values. We suggest, therefore, that leaders need to consider the effect on stakeholders

of perceived or actual mismatches between espoused and enacted values – which represent

breaches of integrity and, as such, risk undermining credibility and trust (see Simons et al.,

2007) .

Indeed, our own research (Lee, 2015) has highlighted that tack of organisational integrity

has particular implications for first-line and middle managers, who are intermediaries

between the organisation (personified by its executive leaders) and non-managerial

employees. These managers typically operate with limited autonomy and little influence

over the actions and decisions of senior leaders or the way in which these are

communicated. At the same time, their role involves a form of sense-making for employees,

interpreting seeming inconsistent events to create coherence and meaning (Beck and

Plowman, 2009; Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Weick, 1995). Indeed, Palanski & Yammarino

(2009, p.418) suggest that it is often first-line and middle managers who are responsible for

resolving “cross-level integrity conflicts”, choosing whether to prioritise their own integrity

above defending that of the organisation.

Dealing with breaches of organisational integrity: implications for practice

The practice in many organisations who wish to develop a values-led culture is (a) to try to

make values meaningful to employees by expressing them as behaviours, and (b) to

reinforce them by embedding them in role descriptions and appraisal objectives. However,

placing a strong emphasis on organisational values in this way brings a heightened

awareness of inconsistencies between organisational values and behaviour – particularly in

the actions and decisions of top leaders. In the case of an actual or perceived failure by the

organisation (represented by its leaders) to live up to its values, managers face the

leadership challenge of interpreting and mitigating the situation for their team, while

protecting their own behavioural integrity and dealing with the inconsistency at a personal

level. In our own research (Lee, 2015), we found that some managers, such resolution was

achieved by defending the organisation’s action, accompanied by bolstering rationales, such

as having no choice or fulfilling the obligations of the role. For others, choosing not to

18

defend the organisation’s action, in the pursuit of autonomy and authenticity, effectively

left the breach unrepaired. Either way, the fundamental cause of the breach of integrity

remained unresolved.

It therefore seems crucial for responsible leaders to develop a shared sense of what

organisational values – and values enactment – mean in the context of “real world”

decisions, if they are to sustain organisational integrity in the eyes of stakeholders. In

practice, awareness that their actions are likely to be interpreted in value terms may

encourage senior leaders to frame strategic or tactical decisions in terms of organisational

values. By using this form of “proactive sense-giving” (Cha and Edmondson, 2006, p. 75),

they will help to develop shared meanings and avoid perceived or actual inconsistencies.

Finally, are senior leaders prepared to be challenged when their decisions appear to

compromise organisational values and integrity? If so, facilitating the acceptance and

implementation of those decisions may not constitute the “right” thing for managers to do

in the context of responsible leadership practice. Fostering shared values and enacting

values-aligned behaviour need not, in our view, lead to “moral muteness” (Bird and Waters,

1989) or “organizational silence” (Verhezen, 2010; Morrison and Milliken, 2000); nor to the

dysfunctional outcomes associated with strong or over-cohesive cultures, such as stagnation

and lack of innovation (Kristof, 1996; Morgan, 1986) and groupthink (Janis and Mann, 1977).

It is rather a question of what the organisation values, and which types of behaviours are

encouraged. Thus, organisations might consider how they can develop a culture that

encourages managers to challenge lapses of integrity, and how they can prepare senior

leaders to respond to such challenges.

Conclusion and opportunities for further research

Given the theoretical and practical relevance of personal and organisational values to

leadership, as outlined above, we consider that the broad territory of values-led leadership

presents both “snakes” and “ladders” in relation to leadership practice and research. In this

paper we have highlighted the conceptual and definitional issues that characterise the field

19

of values, and challenged some of the assumptions that are to be found in parts of the

leadership and organisational values literature. In particular, we noted the conflation of

values with concepts such as principles, beliefs, character traits and behaviours, and the

tendency to focus on particular “ethical” value types rather than a more rounded

consideration of personal value systems. Informed by our own research in organisations

with strong, values-based cultures, we also suggested the need to consider the values of

followers as well as [top] leaders; the consequences for organisational integrity of failure to

live up to espoused organisational values; and the implications for leadership development

and practice.

During the course of the paper, our synopsis of the personal and organisational values

literature touched on several areas which merit further clarification, knowledge gathering

and research in the leadership context. Scholarship on values-led leadership would

undoubtedly benefit from greater conceptual rigour in order to distinguish between values

and behaviours or virtues when these elements are discussed. Future research needs to

distinguish between the personal values of leader figures; the personal values of followers;

espoused organisational values; and enacted organisational values, and to avoid the

assumption of “shared” values at these different levels. There is also scope for finding

alternative ways of assessing values priorities, to complement existing, quantitative survey

measures. It seems to us that more qualitative, situationally based techniques have great

potential in bridging the gulf between “abstract” values and real-life experience and

behaviour, and in uncovering the meaning that values hold for individuals, particularly when

they are faced with challenging situations that bring their values into conflict. The

development of shared or distributed and relational leadership models (Pearce et al., 2011;

Yukl, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Gronn, 2002), and the emergent interest in more situated,

participatory forms of leadership practice, present an opportunity for research on values

and leadership within these alternative frames of reference. Finally, applying the idea of

personal value systems as a whole, rather than focusing on prescribed or “ethical” values

alone, may enable researchers and practitioners to explore ways in which leaders can

experience and enable personal values fulfilment at work.

20

References

Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A. & Einarsen, S. (2008) The Dark Side: Defining Destructive Leadership

Behaviour. e-Organisations & People, 15 (3), 20-28.

Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. (2012) What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932-968.

Allport, G. W. (1961) Pattern and growth in personality, New York, Holt.

Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming organizational defenses, Boston, Mass., Allyn and Bacon.

Audi, R. & Murphy, P. E. (2006) The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16 (1), 3-21.

Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315-338.

Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2004) Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4), 523-549.

Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217.

Beck, T. E. & Plowman, D. A. (2009) Experiencing Rare and Unusual Events Richly: The Role of Middle Managers in Animating and Guiding Organizational Interpretation. Organization Science, 20 (5), 909-924.

Bird, F. B. & Waters, J. A. (1989) The Moral Muteness of Managers. California Management Review, 32 (1), 73-88.

Boal, K. B. & Bryson, J. M. (1988) Charismatic leadership: a phenomenological and structural approach. In: Hunt, J. G., Baliga, B. R., Dachler, H. P. & Schriesheim, C. A. (eds.) Emerging leadership vistas: International symposium on leadership and managerial behavior research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2006) Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (6), 595-616.

Cable, D. M. & Edwards, J. R. (2004) Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), 822-834.

Cha, S. E. & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17 (1), 57-78.

Chatman, J. A. (1991) Matching People and Organizations - Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3), 459-484.

21

Conger, J. A. (2007) The dark side of leadership. In: Vecchio, R. P. (ed.) Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. & Menon, S. T. (2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7), 747-767.

Connor, P. E. & Becker, B. W. (1979) Values and the organization: suggestions for research. In: Rokeach, M. (ed.) Understanding human values : Individual and societal. N.Y.: Free Press.

Connor, P. E. & Becker, B. W. (1994) Personal Values and Management: What do we Know and Why don't we Know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (1), 67-73.

Crilly, D., Schneider, S. C. & Zollo, M. (2008) Psychological antecedents to socially responsible behavior. European Management Review, 5 (3), 175-190.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1995) Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In: Kernis, M. H. (ed.) Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York: Plenum Press.

Edwards, J. R. & Cable, D. A. (2009) The Value of Value Congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 654-677.

Erickson, R. J. (1995) The Importance of Authenticity for Self and Society. Symbolic Interaction, 18 (2), 121-144.

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 (6), 1135-1151.

Feather, N. T. (1996) Values, deservingness and attitudes toward high achievers: Research on tall poppies. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.

Fritzsche, D. J. & Oz, E. (2007) Personal values' influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75 (4), 335-343.

Fry, L. W. (2003) Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331-362.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R. & Walumbwa, F. (2005) "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 343-372.

22

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M. & Dickens, M. P. (2011) Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (6), 1120-1145.

George, B. (2003) Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N. & Mayer, D. (2007) Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85 (2), 129-138.

Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (4), 423-451.

Groves, K. & LaRocca, M. (2011) An Empirical Study of Leader Ethical Values, Transformational and Transactional Leadership, and Follower Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103 (4), 511-528.

Harter, S. (2002) Authenticity. In: Lopez, S. J. & Snyder, C. R. (eds.) Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hechter, M. (1993) Values Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. In: Hechter, M., Nadel, L. & Michod, R. E. (eds.) The Origin of Values. New York: Aldine.

Higgs, M. & Lichtenstein, S. (2009) An exploration of the relationship between personality and values. European Academy of Management 9th Annual Conference, 11-14 May, Liverpool, UK.

Hind, P., Wilson, A. & Lenssen, G. (2009) Developing leaders for sustainable business. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 9 (1), 7-20.

Hitlin, S. (2003) Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 (2), 118-137.

Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J. A. (2004) Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 359.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P. & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005) Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 373-394.

Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment, New York, Free Press.

Kahle, L. R. (1996) Social values and consumer behavior: research from the List of Values. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Karakas, F. (2010) Spirituality and Performance in Organizations: A Literature Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (1), 89-106.

Kernis, M. H. (2003) Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14 (1), 1 - 26.

23

Kernis, M. H. & Goldman, B. M. (2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In: Zanna, M. P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 38. San Diego, CA US: Elsevier Academic Press.

Kluckhorn, C. (1951) Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In: Parsons, T. & Shils, E. A. (eds.) Toward a general theory of action. New York: Harper.

Koehn, D. (2005) Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58 (1-3), 125-136.

Kraemer, H. M. (2011) From values to action: the four principles of values-based leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kristiansen, C. M. & Hotte, A. M. (1996) Morality and the self: implications for the when and how of value-attitude-behaviour relations. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Kristof, A. L. (1996) Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), 1-49.

Lee, S. (2015). Dealing with the tensions and dilemmas of management: a value conflicts perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southampton.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. (2008) Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.

Lord, R. G. & Brown, D. J. (2001) Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (2), 133-152.

Maio, G. R. & Olson, J. M. (1998) Values as truisms: Evidence and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 294-311.

Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Allen, L. & Bernard, M. M. (2001) Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (2), 104-117.

Maslow, A. H. (1962) Toward a psychology of being, Princeton, N.J.,, Van Nostrand.

Maslow, A. H. (1970) Motivation and personality (3rd Edn.), New York: Harper Collins.

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D. & Avolio, B. J. (2003) Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32 (3), 247-260.

Meglino, B. M. & Ravlin, E. C. (1998) Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 351-389.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B. & Dukerich, J. M. (1985) The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), 78-102.

24

Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H. & Toplonytsky, L. (2010) Person-organization (culture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 (3), 458-473.

Morgan, G. (1986) Images of organization, Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage.

Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 706-725.

Mumford, M. D., Helton, W. B., Decker, B. P., Connelly, M. S. & Van Doorn, J. R. (2003) Values and Beliefs Related to Ethical Decisions. Teaching Business Ethics, 7 (2), 139-170.

Murray, S. L., Haddock, G. & Zanna, M. P. (1996) On creating value-expressive attitudes: an experimental approach. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991) People and Organizational Culture - a Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516.

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (2009) Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (3), 405-420.

Pearce, C. L., Elisabeth Hoch, J., Jeppe Jeppesen, H. & Wegge, J. (2011) New Forms of Management: Shared and Distributed Leadership in Organizations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9 (4), 151-153.

Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L. & Manz, C. C. (2014) Is Shared Leadership the Key to Responsible Leadership? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (3), 275-288.

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982) In search of excellence: lessons from America's best-run companies, New York, Harper and Row.

Robertson, I. & Callinan, M. (1998) Personality and Work Behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7 (3), 321 - 340.

Rogers, C. R. (1961) On Becoming a Person. A therapist's view of psychotherapy, London, Constable & Co.

Rohan, M. J. (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (3), 255-277.

Rohan, M. J. & Zanna, M. P. (2001) Values and ideologies. In: Tesser, A. & Schwarz, N. (eds.) Blackwell Handbook of social psychology: intraindividual processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Rokeach, M. (1968) Beliefs attitudes and values : A theory of Organization and Change, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

25

Rokeach, M. (1973) The nature of human values, New York, Free Press.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002) Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (eds.) Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. H. (1995) Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3), 437-448.

Schein, E. H. (1997) Organizational culture and leadership (2nd Edn.), San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. & Alderfer, C. P. (1973) Three Studies of Measures of Need Satisfaction in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 (4), 489-505.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, D. B. (1995) The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 747-773.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. (1996) Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated value systems. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.) The Ontario Symposium:The psychology of values. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, S. H. (2011) Studying Values: Personal Adventure, Future Directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (2), 307-319.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987) Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human-Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O. & Konty, M. (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 663-688.

Shamir, B., House, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1993) The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership - a Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4 (4), 577-594.

Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A. & Parks, J. M. (2007) Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and "trickle down" among Black and non-Black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 650-665.

Sosik, J. J. (2005) The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2), 221-244.

Spears, L. C. & Lawrence, M. (2002) Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century, New York John Wiley & Sons.

26

Stahl, G. K. & De Luque, M. S. (2014) Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: a research synthesis, conceptual framework and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (3), 235-254.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986) A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (4), 819-827.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17 (6), 654-676.

Verhezen, P. (2010) Giving Voice in a Culture of Silence: from a Culture of Compliance to a Culture of Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (2), 187-206.

Verplanken, B. & Holland, R. W. (2002) Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 434-447.

Waldman, D. A. & Galvin, B. M. (2008) Alternative Perspectives of Responsible Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327-341.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. & Peterson, S. J. (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34 (1), 89-126.

Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks; Calif., Sage.

Williams, R. M. (1979) Change and stability in values and value systems. In: Rokeach, M. (ed.) Understanding human values : Individual and societal. N.Y.: Free Press.

Yukl, G. (2010) Leadership in organizations (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.