Anda di halaman 1dari 42

The Values Shift

Christo Nel

“Our ancient Roman virtues are virtues no longer”

Lester Thurow

The New Economy represents a historic

values shift as profound



transformation of societies and worldviews

between 1850 and 1980.

The Old and New Economies are not value free

No facet of human life is value-free. Even the most quantitative of the so-called hard sciences is predicated upon a set of values that in turn is based upon a particular worldview that we tend to take for granted. As Fritjof Capra points out in

The Web of Life i , “Values are not peripheral to science and technology but constitute

their very driving force and basis

In reality, scientific facts emerge out of an entire

… constellation of human perceptions, values, and actions – in one word, out of a


paradigm – from which they cannot be separated.”

This is particularly true for the challenge of transforming an organisation from the Old to the New Economy. As we show later, every facet of leadership practices and organisational life is an extension of deeper underlying values. In fact it goes even deeper.

The macro context of the Values Shift

Since the 1960s there has been a steady emergence of thinking which questions the traditional thinking and conventional wisdom which still dominates the debate on economic worldviews, policy and practice. The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the USSR and East European centrist socialistic states for a while gave rise to the belief that “communism has lost and capitalism has won.” The events since the end of the 1990s have proved this claim to be naïve and very short sighted. The spectacular burst of the “Dot Com bubble”; the implosion of Enron and Worldcom, and several similar large corporate failures throughout the last two decades; the sub- prime crisis which plummeted the world and specifically the USA and Europe into

deep financial crisis in 2008 and which still continues to create havoc with national economies; and the ongoing growth of inequality between the have’s and the have not’s in most countries points to deep flaws in the current system of capitalism. Slowly the realisation is growing that “capitalism did not win; communism simply lost first.”

One of the great business thinkers of the 20 th Century, Peter Drucker noted, “Every few hundred years in (Western) history there occurs a sharp transformation. Within a few short decades, society – its world view, its basic values, its social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions – rearranges itself. And the people born then cannot even imagine a world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. We are currently living though such a transformation.” (The Post-capitalist Society, 1993.)

The sentiments and beliefs associated with the necessity to drive a fundamental Values Shift is not an anti-business, anti-free enterprise, or anti-profit belief system. To contrary research proves that organisations in both the private and public sectors that make this shift significantly outperform those that are still wedded to the increasingly antiquated beliefs of dominance and subservience.

Three important projects provide a growing international debate about the role of business in society and what is required for private sector business and organisations in general to become meaningful contributors to the larger good of society as a whole. The underlying emergent belief is that business cannot operate merely to serve its own interests because it has become arguably the single most influential force in modern history. It is one of the most powerful shapers of the values of society; it remains that largest creator and distributor of wealth; it creates jobs that provide meaning to people’s lives; and it contributes to placing increasing pressure on the world’s environment and ecosystems.

These three sets of principles and challenges cut the heart of the leadership challenges facing organisations in the 21 st Century. Conversely, increasing evidence indicates that if this historic shift cannot be made it may significantly erode the sustainability of social and economic systems at every level of society. Together these three initiatives provide the macro context within which governments and business need to review and transform their existing approaches to capitalism and the role of business in society. This cannot be done without the active development and application of new approaches to leadership at personal, interpersonal, organisational and societal levels.

1. Millennium Development Goals

The MDGs were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000. There are eight goals with 21 targets, and a series of measurable indicators for each target.

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




Proportion of population below $1 per day (PPP values) Poverty gap ratio [incidence x depth of poverty] Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

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





GDP Growth per Employed Person Employment Rate Proportion of employed population below $1 per day (PPP values) Proportion of family-based workers in employed population

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



Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption [6]

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 2A: By 2015, all children can complete a full course of primary schooling, girls and boys Enrolment in primary education Completion of primary education Literacy of 15-24 year olds, female and male [7]




Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Target 3A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015 Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament [8]




Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality Rate

Target 4A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate




Under-five mortality rate Infant (under 1) mortality rate Proportion of 1-year-old children immunised against measles [9]

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5A: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Maternal mortality ratio Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel Target 5B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health Contraceptive prevalence rate Adolescent birth rate Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits) Unmet need for family planning [10]







Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases

Target 6A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS HIV prevalence among population aged 15–24 years Condom use at last high-risk sex Proportion of population aged 15–24 years with comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS o Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non- orphans aged 10–14 years




Target 6B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it

o Proportion of population with advanced HIV infection with access to antiretroviral drugs Target 6C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria o Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under insecticide-treated bednets


Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis o Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment Short Course) [11]



Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Target 7A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental

resources Target 7B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss


Proportion of land area covered by forest

CO 2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) Consumption of ozone-depleting substances Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits Proportion of total water resources used Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected Proportion of species threatened with extinction Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable







access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (for more information see the entry on water supply) Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural Proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation Target 7D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers Proportion of urban population living in slums [12]




Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

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

discriminatory trading and financial system o Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction – both nationally and internationally Target 8B: Address the Special Needs of the Least Developed Countries (LDC)

o Includes: tariff and quota free access for LDC exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) for countries committed to poverty reduction Target 8C: Address the special needs of landlocked developing

countries and small island developing States o Through the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly

Target 8D: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term


Some of the indicators listed below are monitored separately for the least developed countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.

Official development assistance (ODA)


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




Proportion of total sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their GNIs


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

Market access


Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding

arms) from developing countries and from LDCs, admitted free of duty Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries o Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as percentage of their GDP Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity



Debt sustainability




Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative, US$ Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services

Target 8E: In co-operation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries

o Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis Target 8F: In co-operation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications




Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population Personal computers in use per 100 population Internet users per 100 Population

  • 2. United Nations Global Compact for Business

Human Rights

Businesses should:

Principle 1: Support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed

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

Labour Standards

Businesses should uphold:

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

right to collective bargaining; Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and

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


Businesses should:

Principle 7: support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote environmental responsibility; and

Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.


Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

  • 3. Management shooting for the moon

Gary Hamel and some of the world’s greatest thinkers on leadership, management and business got together at the end of 2008 to review the role of leadership and business. In his ensuing article (Moonshots for Management, Harvard Business Review, February 2009) Hamel summarises their findings. He makes a call for the abandonment of “management 1.0” and the radical design of how we view leadership and organisations. He and his colleagues identify 25 objectives to design and execute “management 2.0” which is now so critical for sustainable organisational activity:

  • 1. Ensure that management’s work serves a higher purpose. Management, both

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

significant goals.

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

systems. There’s a need for processes and practices that reflect the

interdependence of all stakeholder groups.

  • 3. Reconstruct management’s philosophical foundations. To build organizations

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

biology, markets, democracies, and theology.

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

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

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

engagement and must be wrung out of tomorrow’s management systems.

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

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

constraints from without.

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

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

to enable innovation and collaboration.


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

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

consensus, and cohesion.

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

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


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

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

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

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

  • 12. Share the work of setting direction. To engender commitment, the

responsibility for goal setting must be distributed in a process where share of voice is

a function of insight, not power.

  • 13. Develop holistic performance measures. Existing performance metrics must

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

that drive success in the creative economy.

  • 14. Stretch executives’ timeframes and perspectives. Discover alternatives to

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

goals for short-term gains.

  • 15. Create a democracy of information. Companies need holographic information

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

  • 16. Empower renegades and disarm reactionaries. Management systems must

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

rather than in the past.

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

redesigned to facilitate grassroots initiatives and local experimentation.

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

than hierarchies are at allocating resources, and companies’ resource allocation

processes need to reflect this fact.

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

biases and exploit the collective wisdom of the entire organization.

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

choices. What’s needed are hybrid systems that subtly optimize key trade-offs.

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

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

management systems.

22. Enable communities of passion. To maximize employee engagement, management systems must facilitate the formation of communities of passion. 23. Retool management for an open world. Value-creating networks often transcend the firm’s boundaries and can render traditional power-based management tools ineffective. New management tools are needed to build complex ecosystems. 24. Humanize the language and practice of business. Tomorrow’s management systems must give as much credence to timeless human ideals such as beauty, justice and community as they do to the traditional goals of efficiency, advantage, and profit. 25. Retrain managerial minds. Managers’ traditional deductive and analytical skills must be complemented by conceptual and systems-thinking skills. These “moon shots for management” focus much more on the leadership and organisational cultures and encourage a major reengineering of how we view and manage organisations in future. These ideals need to be translated into day-to-day workplace and leadership practices that can be felt and experienced by employees and management as a natural order of how things get done.












The revolution from the Old to the New Economy is above all else a transformation of values. It signifies a powerful, if slow, shift from one large system of values to another that are to all intents mutually exclusive. One of the reasons that so many attempts at creating a transformation of organisational leadership and culture is because leaders underestimate what it takes to shift the behaviours that demonstrate a true transformation of values. We’ve encountered numerous instances where the executive team have participated in a workshop where they brainstormed the “new” values for the organisation. These then get published in the company news letter, sometimes captured in glossy brochures, and even put up as posters all over the organisation. That’s as far as it if often goes.

Peter Senge, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning - a global community of corporations, researchers, and consultants - is dedicated to the interdependent development of people and the institutions in which they work. He is also the author of The Fifth Discipline ii , wherein he claims that the single most powerful leadership intervention that can be undertaken is to alter the values of an organisation or community.

Many leaders underestimate this primary task. As a consequence they often fail to recognise the extent to which existing organisational and leadership practices reinforce Old Economy values, even while they may be sincere in wanting to make a meaningful and lasting impact.

This shift can be illustrated as follows:

The Values Shift





Power over

Power to

Power through

Power By, For, With

Leading servants



Servant leadership




Unleash Energy




Partnership in



Productivity and





Domination & Subordination

Power implies inequality Prejudice Exclusive privilege Subordination Desperation Fear

Values-based Leadership

Power is a fluid conversation Stakeholdership Inclusive progress Participation Motivation Aspiration

Values are expressed through behaviour

Values are not nice sounding statements aimed at enhancing the public relations image of an organisation. They are rooted in the real time behaviours and practices of the organisation, its people and leaders. So, if an organisation provides misleading information to customers, or pays out huge bonuses to senior managers while they fail to provide cost efficient services to customers, it tells us that their true values are to exploit customers for as long as possible – regardless of what may be stated in chairman’s reports or on fancy posters. If an organisation’s leaders claim that they are committed to creating and attracting talent, yet slash the training and development budgets as a first port of call when there is a squeeze on costs – and at the same time make no move to adjust executive bonuses – the message is clear:

our values are that executive bonuses in the short term are more important that the development of people for the long term.

If leaders want to issue fine sounding statements, but lack the stamina and will to accompany this with much deeper transformation of behaviours, it is better to do nothing at all. Publishing a setoff values without altering behaviour to demonstrate true commitment creates cynicism.

Christo and a colleague, Aitken Ramudzuli, were working with a manufacturing client near Johannesburg. During their initial interview with the CEO and his team they explored the extent to which the leaders and organisation had developed a set of shared values. The executive team was quite adamant that this was in place. In fact they quite proudly pointed to the framed copy of the values that hung in the Board room.

A while later Christo and Aitken were conducting focus groups with some of the production workers. Aitken asked them about the values, but it was clear there was no real understanding of what he was talking about. Aitken pointed to the poster containing the values that was stuck against one of the walls of the canteen and asked what they thought of it.

“Oh that,” replied one of them, “I’m not sure but it’s probably got something to do with the new disciplinary code. We saw the HR man put it up the other day”

Such experiences have taught us to never accept how well values are being lived without exploring the extent to which people across all levels share a deep and common understanding of what it means in practice. More important, we want to know the extent to which and how such values are being lived by people regardless of position.

Living values is a non-negotiable performance requirement










statements without processes to identify and forthrightly addressing non-

conformance to those values are equally meaningless.

Jack Welch, the celebrated business leader and past CEO of General Electric, takes values extremely seriously. He believes that people’s underlying values should be a primary determinant in their selection, retention and development within an organisation. He defined four value-driven types in one of his CEO reports:

People who deliver high performance and live the organisation’s values.

These are the jewels of the organisation and need to be retained because they hold the future in their hands. People who live the values but do not deliver high performance. They should be treated with tolerance and given the opportunity to improve their performance – because it is much easier to improve performance than to change values.

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

They may require counselling, but if there is not rapid improvement across values and performance, they need to leave the company. People who deliver exceptional performance, but do not live the values. Such people, says Welch, must be treated with minimal tolerance. They must be given a short time to demonstrate their capacity to live the values, and if they fail they must depart.

Welch made it clear that it was not acceptable to tolerate high performance when the individual was clearly not living the values. The moment leaders and an organisation allow this they are essentially saying, “The ends justify the means. It doesn’t matter what and how you do things, as long as you deliver good results.” This will steadily erode the moral fibre of the organisation. It is simply not possible to embark upon the development of a high performance organisation based on New Economy Leadership without also consciously entrenching the values shift that must accompany this. Conversely, it is not wise to make fine sounding statements about commitment to a new value system if it is not accompanied by equally firm transformation of organisational and leadership practices.

Four Waves of Values

There are four clearly discernable waves of values that are present in varying degrees all of the time. Broadly these can be defined as follows:

1 st

Wave – driven by Coercion

2 nd Wave – driven by Co-option 3 rd Wave – driven by Collaboration 4 th Wave – driven by Co-creation

3 rd & 4 th Wave Values in Action:

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

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

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

views are in conflict with one’s own. Contribute to getting the diverse people together so that they can openly and forthrightly present their views and declare their interests.

Act in ways that recognise that all of the perspectives contain some validity and need to be explored. Specific opportunity will be created for people to raise dissenting views and to explore these. The prevailing atmosphere will be one of respect and valuing the diversity of participants.

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

appropriate, they will not fall into the trap of sustained advocacy of their position. Instead, they will take at least as much time with inquiry to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of the other perspectives. There will be a sense of abundance about sharing information and a willingness to also learn from one another. The people participating in this process will generally share a deep conviction

that even though this process may feel slow and tedious, it will in the end deliver faster and more lasting results. It is clear that individuals have the courage to state their views because they

know that it is expected of them, and that even they are ultimately wrong it will not be held against them. Generally this group will adopt and attitude of “When I feel a desire to reject what

you are saying, I’ll first assume that perhaps I’m not really understanding it yet – and so I will first endeavour to comprehend what you are really trying to say.” The people participating in this process will clearly have mastered what Jim Collins calls The Genius of the AND (Good to Great.)

1 st & 2 nd Wave Values in Action:

The people who base their choices and deeds predominantly on the 1 st and 2 nd waves will have a much different approach. It will look more like this:

Before getting together different parties will be inclined to take an early position on what they want to get out of the interaction.

Without getting together, the conflicting parties will spend time strategising how they are going to outwit their “opponents.” In particular, they will spend quite a bit of time determining and agreeing what information they will divulge, and what they will keep secret or try to hide from the others. During the first interaction, if it does indeed occur, the various parties will rapidly move to take up positions. They will enter into a bartering process of exchanging one gain for another. The atmosphere will generally be one of suspicion, cautiousness and wondering

where one stands with the other side. A few people often dominate discussions, with many keeping quiet. This is either because they feel that their views will not be explored in any event, or if what they say is unpopular it could amount to a “career limiting move.”

There is a sense in the room of “I thought you were going to hit me, so I hit you back first!”

These people will, in terms of Jim Collins, remain entrapped in the Tyranny of the ‘OR’. The key issue is to determine the “values centre of gravity” which guides the behaviours of individuals, teams, organisations and entire societies. Another way of looking at it is to determine the extent to which the third and fourth waves are generally subservient to the first and second. And, when the situation demands 1 st and 2 nd wave responses, these responses are still carried out in ways that do not undermine or ignore the 3 rd and 4 th waves of values.

On September 11 2001, the Twin Towers in New York were destroyed in one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in history. Few people could deny that this invited a response from the USA government that fell firmly into the 1 st and 2 nd waves of values. Under the leadership of George W Bush, the USA embarked upon a “War against terror.” Even in the early days of the American response it became clear that they were not going to adhere to the requirements of the 3 rd and 4 th waves of values. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the trauma that they have experienced, there was still the choice whether they would follow a route of optimum Co-determination and Co-creation. The tragic unfolding of the war in Iraq by 2006, the selective suspension of basic civil liberties by the USA Government, the lengthy detention without trial of suspects, and the rejection of cooperating with internationally respected institutions and governments, all

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

Both Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush had become entrapped in the fundamentalism and mutual mistrust and desire to kill one another. In essence they are trapped and participants in 1 st and 2 nd wave values.

There is no simplistic or absolute cut off point between Old and New Economy values. Instead it represents a spectrum of world views and values that represent everything from harsh autocracy and control to open system engagement and integration of interests.

The post-Apartheid South African experience has in many ways been the exact opposite. If the new government, under the leadership of the ANC (African National Congress) had opted to remain embroiled in Old Economy values, then the atrocities of Apartheid may well have led to Nuremburg type trials for crimes against humanity. Instead, under the leadership of people such as Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, everyone opted for a different approach. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than through the extensive Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The atrocities that people committed were generally driven by 1 st and 2 nd wave values. Yet, in dealing with these deeds, the new post-Apartheid society chose to approach it from 3 rd and 4 th wave perspectives. Not everyone was absolved of guilt. Some people were jailed. In that sense the harsher punishment of typical 1 st and 2 nd wave values were still applied. But, it was done from a perspective of inclusivity, transparency, acknowledgement of the interrelatedness of society, and the need to act in ways that would benefit generations to come.

It would be naïve to believe that the 1 st and 2 nd waves of values can or should ever be totally eradicated. The forcefulness and even aggression that is associated with the first two waves are often required in times of extreme crisis or threat. They are also probably the source of the requisite arrogance that individuals require to believe that they are capable of coping with the often anxiety provoking complexities of life and organisational competitiveness. The inclination of an individual, team, organisation or even entire society will be to respond in terms of a spectrum of values that encompass all four waves. The system’s values profile will have a profound impact on how it approaches the exact same situation.

When we start to work with organisations, one of the first things we try to do is to determine what their real as opposed to espoused value system is. In practice this may be as simple as spending some time discussing what a few typical leadership and organisational behaviours look like on a daily basis. We then invite members of the organisation, or even an individual who may be involved in personal leadership coaching, to allocate 100 points across the four waves of values. In the example above, we define how typical 3 rd and 4 th wave people respond to exactly the same situation compared to typical 1 st and 2 nd wave people. System B illustrates the values profile for 3 rd and 4 th Wave Values, and System B for the often still more dominant 1 st and 2 nd Wave Values.

Status of the Organisation:













System A

System B

Old Economy

New Economy









As you read through this section on values, ask yourself to what extent your own behaviours are demonstrating 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd or 4 th wave practices and worldviews. Also take time to determine your team’s or organisation’s values profile by allocating 100 points across the four waves. Each of the waves of values form an intricate web of attitudes, relationships, beliefs and behaviours. Three integrated elements of each value system become deeply entrenched through generations of subtle and overt cultural development. The three elements are:

Primary Intent: The deeper underlying intent of behaviours and leadership

styles, and the conscious or unconscious impact of the values. Secondary Affect and Application: The ways in which the value system is

generally played out, and the imperative to sustain it. Relational Impact: The impact it has on relationships and how it shapes the interaction and relationships between individuals and groups.


Old Economy

New Economy








Violence and

Money and



Affect and



and Participation

Community and



Overt or



Environment and


and Patronage

and Self Insight

“7 th Generation”




Independence &





Studies indicate that it is essential for the vast majority of people to learn what is acceptable and not condoned within their cultural environment early on in life to ensure both acceptance by the larger system and therefore survival. Johnson concludes that we spend the first half of our lives learning how to cope with and respond to the cultures we live in; and the second part recovering from it! This is one of the reasons why changing an organisation’s value system is so incredibly difficult. From an early age we are expected to comply with a specific value system. Our family upbringing, schooling, social life, religions, university life, work life all tend to reinforce meta-value systems. Compliance to the system reinforces social acceptance. Contravening the system brings with it censure. To add to the difficulty, adversaries within a system of values will share those values – even if they claim to detest them. For example, management and organised labour may be stuck in the 2 nd wave of cooption and co-dependence. As a result they will remain embroiled in low intensity conflict that sometimes erupts through strikes or large scale dismissals. But, at least both parties understand how to interact with one another within this system. What they don’t know is how to operate within a 3 rd and 4 th wave value system! So, they will both tend to remain embroiled within the territory they know and have learnt to cope with.

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine is a tragic example. Both parties are locked into 1 st and 2 nd wave value systems. They consistently want to prove that the ongoing violence is the other side’s fault. Both claim the moral high ground. Both claim it is always the other side that first breaks agreements. Both claim to have primary historic claims. And both would appear to be

willing to rather die fighting than break out of the comfort of combat that their shared value systems have locked them into. For this reason, as we discuss in greater detail in the chapter on Stakeholder Value, any attempt to engineer a lasting shift in values has to be approached with deep thought and undiluted commitment to acting in ways that are generally totally different to the present. New Economy Leadership and creating a high performance organisation that

drives sustainable competitiveness is about making this shift.

The seven elements of

organisational transformation that we discuss in this book define the foundation

stones for making this shift.

But, it is not for the faint hearted. It is, after all, the single

most profound leadership undertaking any person or organisation can embark upon. Everyone in the organisation, but specifically people in senior leadership positions need to develop a clear understanding of what acceptable and unacceptable values look like in practice. Senior leaders have the added accountability of consistently maintaining the tension between what is desired and what is unacceptable. They can only do this if they have developed a vivid mental image of various waves of values so that they can quickly identify when behaviours are aligned to an unacceptable value system and to address it, and to clearly articulate what the desired behaviours and values look like in practice. This provides the foundation for enabling the organisation as a whole to become active participants in entrenching the desired values through day-to-day living. It also enables everyone to take personal charge of flagging and addressing behaviours when they do not live the desired values.

SAB Ltd, South Africa’s dominant beer brewer and part of the global SabMiller group that has grown from a largely domestic South African brewer in the early 1990s to the second largest brewer in the world within 15 years. It is widely recognised as one of the world’s most effective and sustainably competitive organisations. In the early 1990s they embarked upon an enterprise-wide world class manufacturing and integrated management practices intervention. This included involving virtually their entire workforce in developing a set of shared values. It culminated in a small pocket book that contained the values, with each one defined in terms of critical behaviours

through which to live the values. Literally thousands of people had participated as peers in this process.

The values come alive: A few months after enterprise-wide discussion groups had taken place for people to develop a shared understanding of what it meant to live the values, a wonderful example occurred. A production foreman instructed a forklift driver to load a pallet of beer onto a truck. The driver pointed out that the labels on the bottles were not pasted on properly and this did not meet quality standards. The foreman told the driver to do as instructed. At this point the driver removed his little values note book from his pocket, turned the page on Quality, and pointed to one of the behaviours. “This says that anyone can and must prevent poor quality products leaving the grounds. Shall we discuss this or do we need to discuss it with the General Manager?”

Everyone in SAB knew that the CEO and executive committee were primary champions of the values. This enabled the fork lift driver to engage with a foreman

and flag that the behaviour was not aligned to the values. It is only when this can occur without fear of retribution that values come alive. So, let us explore what the various waves of values look like so that

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

Leaders can communicate what is expected and what will no longer be accepted;

And, everyone can join forces in driving the shift to New Economy Leadership

and values.

1 st Wave: Coercion - Violence & Demand – Dependence The values of coercion depend on the capacity of one party to force another to submit to their views or demands. This coercion may be very obvious and overt. We see this when a leader threatens someone with being fired or even with death. Some of the great dictators of the world have been past masters at this. In most modern societies we don’t really encounter this too often. It’s often more polite and sublimated. The intent is the same – to force others to subjugate their views to ours.













manufacturing company. We had conducted an organisational culture diagnosis and it demonstrated that the company was firmly entrenched in Old Economy practices. The focus groups had given ample evidence that management by fear was the common practice. As Christo was giving the

feedback it became apparent that the CEO was getting irritated and unwilling to acknowledge some of the challenges facing the firm. After yet another rejection of the research results it became clear that he had had enough. He pushed his spectacles onto the front of his nose, gazed around the room full of executives and asked, ”Are there anymore questions?!” Everyone remained quiet. With one move and gaze he had effectively shut up a room of well qualified individuals who were all earning seven figure incomes per year.

The CEO did not have to wield a weapon or force anyone into prison without trial. All he had to do was assert his autocratic power to impose his demand on others. His rule of fear had been successful. He acted in a seemingly well mannered way,

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

The end result is that it creates a system of passivity and unwillingness to challenge any view or opinion of a more senior person. The culture of implicit or overt fear makes people too uncertain to assert themselves. It creates a culture of dependency where individuals and groups are too afraid to “rock the boat” and steadily decline into a swamp of passivity, apathy, and at most passive aggression.

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

incapable of creating the space for constructive dissent. The person with more power who says “I don’t have time for people who can’t

see it as it is!” – meaning do it my way or leave The employee who arrives at work day in and day out and simply follows

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

irritated they take their business elsewhere. The workforce who wait passively for the leaders to give direction, and then

follow it without question. The individual who says “I’m not to blame. I was simply following orders.”

One of the most common results of this wave of values is that even the most mundane decisions often have to be made by people in very senior positions. People are treated as if they are either not trustworthy or incapable of making judgements and decisions that will benefit the organisation. Procedures and controls that suffocate individual imagination and endeavours are a common feature.

2 nd Wave: Cooption – Money & Control - Co-dependence As is the case with the 1 st wave of values, the 2 nd also has the affect of undermining the authenticity and basic adult capabilities of people. The major difference is that the style of leadership often shifts from the more harsh authoritarian style of the 1 st wave to that of the “hero leader.” In essence the underpinning leadership values still remain that the leader knows better and needs to demonstrate the capacity to be in charge all or at least the vast majority of the time. Leaders and organisations that rely heavily on these values have some common characteristics:

Leaders do not appear open to be challenged, although they will engage with people under circumstances where they are clearly in control.

Leaders have a strong aversion to appearing as if they do not have an answer or do not know what is going on.

It is important to be seen to endorse the leaders because one’s own wellbeing

will generally be affected by whether the leader likes or dislikes you. It is more important to do some right than do the right thing. For this reason people are not generally willing to openly identify and admit personal errors.

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

The system as a whole is risk averse because there is not a culture of learning.

The need to be, or at least appear to be, in control encourages silo behaviour.

Leaders and people within silos do not readily interact with one another if they cannot quite clearly define separate accountabilities – mostly to ensure that the “we” cannot be blamed for something “they’ve” done. People are loath to get involved with activities where they cannot take charge and control resources.

Departments and divisions that are essentially interdependent and rely on one another to ultimately deliver services and product to the customer are often at loggerheads or simply do not understand one another’s roles and needs.


Production blames sales for expecting unrealistic flexibility and prices.


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


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


HR blames line management for not allowing adequate budgets for


training and development. Sales blames finance for being too slow in authorising credit for customers.

One function is often viewed as significantly more important than another. This is often related to which function the CEO and the most influential executives view as the most important.

These systems rely a great deal on the extent to which they can co-opt others to provide support. Money, privilege and patronage regularly play a significant role in this. The people with the power to allocate money, privilege and patronage use this to reward those who are loyal to them and withhold it from those who are not favoured as much. Straight talking and robust feedback are often largely absent because in these systems forthright honesty of views and feedback may reduce one’s own capacity to receive money and privilege. Likewise management will often be loath to give direct feedback on inadequate performance because they do not want to run the risk of becoming unpopular with peers and people reporting to them. In worst cases relationships become co-dependent or counter-dependent as some may define it. When this occurs relationships are often characterised by passive aggression. Tense relationships between management and unions, or between the organisation and a key supplier such as its bank, can often develop into co- dependence. Essentially the different parties do not trust one another or like one another much, but they need one another regardless. Co-dependence and counterdependence requires at least two parties to collude with one another to continuously reinforce a system that undermines the long term and sustainable interests of both parties. At best the diverse parties will develop a pattern of behaviour that perpetually fluctuates from attempts to co-opt one another, to outbreaks of aggression, and continuously underpinned by mistrust. At the best of times a politeness barrier is maintained which enables the parties to pretend as if everything is fine, but at a deeper level everyone knows it is only a temporary truce. Perhaps the worst aspect of the politeness barrier is that people are never truly honest, open and forthright with one another. As a consequence everyone is left guessing where they stand with one another, rather than relying on straight talking and demonstrating the courage it takes to have a tough conversation.

3 rd Wave: Collaboration - Information & Self Insight – Independence and Interdependence The shift from 1 st and 2 nd wave values to 3 rd wave values is perhaps the most difficult one. In many ways it represents a revolution rather than evolution. As the table “Living the Four Waves of Values in Practice” illustrates, the shift from 1 st to 2 nd is generally an incremental one. But the next shift to 3 rd wave values represents a

significant leap over a chasm dividing two often mutually exclusive worlds of values. At the very least this soft revolution is as disruptive as the hard revolution shift from paper based information systems and sea or air based postal services in one world, and electronic information systems and the Internet in another world.

The shift from 1 st and 2 nd wave to 3 rd wave values is a disruptive leap. It is not possible to incrementally adapt from the one to the other.

Perhaps the dominant reason that so few organisations have already embraced New Economy Leadership is because the values shift is inherently disruptive. It represents a quantum leap, a revolution, it is disruptive and not an incremental adjustment.

A horse drawn cart cannot be incrementally adapted into an internal combustion motor car. This is true even though some rules may remain the same for both,

e.g. which side of the road to travel on. But the leap from the one to the other is disruptive. Apartheid could not be incrementally adjusted into democracy. It required a

disruptive leap from one system to the other, even though the parliaments of both systems still sits in Cape Town. No amount of incremental adjustments can turn a manual type writer into a laptop computer with word processing packages, even though both use the same alphabet.

The primary motive of sustainable profitability is the same for companies operating in the Old or New Economy, but the ways of achieving it are radically different.









quantum leap nature of

transforming their organisations into New Economy Leadership because they claim that the basics remain the same. This is as true as claiming that manual type writers and computerised word processing both use the same alphabet, and that there is therefore no need for fundamental change. Think back to the imaginary leader falling into a coma in 1850 and waking up in 1980. What would have happened to him if he claimed that the country he was in was still populated with diverse people, and so it was quite unnecessary to stop buying and selling slaves in the local super market?

The shift to 3 rd wave values and practices represents a radical move which accepts that the entire value stream, all stakeholders, and people at every level of the organisation have vitally important contributions to make. Leaders of such organisations fully comprehend and demonstrate that they believe that organisations are first and foremost human systems, and therefore have to be designed

accordingly. This is not or other new age and fluffy approach. Instead it is one that moves sharply away from authority-driven performance to a culture and workplace practices that encourage and enable self mastery and people-driven performance.

New Economy Leaders comprehend that sustainable competitiveness can only be achieved if all of the stakeholders and people are dedicated collaborators who have a shared passion to make the organisation succeed in both the short and long term. For this reason New Economy Organisations entrench an integrated set of business processes and practices that tap into and remain committed to unleashing the full potential of people. Rather controlling people these leaders and organisations recognise that the secret to success is to unleash and harness the energy that exists within the vast majority of adults.

Energising interdependence can only be








sense of self and independence. It is only when

individuals and stakeholders truly believe that












become lasting

collaborators in achieving sustainable















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

appreciated and valued.

People or stakeholders who have not yet developed a

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





effective collaborators in achieving

sustainable competitiveness.

Healthy independence is in this way the cornerstone of

lively and energising interdependence. The two go hand in hand. At the root of this is the capacity to reflect, to develop self insight, and to actively use information to drive continuous change and improvement. But, people who are fearful and feel that they are not truly respected as individuals, or for what they

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

The 3 rd wave represents

leaders and organisations who have a passion for

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

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

4 th Wave: Co-creation - Environment & “7 th Generation” - Integration Since the Second World War the role of organisations and both the private and public sectors have become increasingly important at both national and international levels. BY the end of the 20 th Century it had become safe to say that companies, and specifically those with global reach, had become the primary shapers of social norms and values. In many ways the global organisation today wields even more influence than most governments. An organisation with global reach can enter into agreements with foreign governments and companies with much greater speed than most governments in their own countries. The globalisation that is accompanying the New Economy is moving the corporate world into the forefront of exercising intended and often unintended influence far beyond the realms of traditional business and economic practices. As both the hard and soft revolutions continue to take root, organisations, and specifically those within the private and parastatal sectors, will need to seriously review how they view and act within the local global communities they serve and are served by. Governments and their various departments likewise have the increasing accountability to review their roles in contributing to the establishment of societies – both their own and with their trading partners – that are healthy, independent, capable of resilient interdependence, and ultimately sustainable.

The Bioss organisation, well known for the CPA (Career Path Appreciation) evaluation process, defines this as Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Prescience. (Bioss International Southern Africa.)

Corporate Citizenship has to do with the realisation that organisations need to be positioned in the present to secure their viability for periods of 15 to 20 years into the future. This requires a specific leadership intent and capability to obtain, interpret and shape information at levels of global as well as local relevance and complexity. It goes far beyond the bounds of traditional organisational life. Instead it seeks to make sense of and respond to political, economic, social, technological, environmental, regulatory and religious trends that may be all but invisible at present. Needless to say, this requires

enhanced capacity to feel comfortable and work with fuzzy information, ambiguity and paradoxes. At this level leaders are increasingly expected to develop a deeper understanding of other cultures, to sense what may be developing, and to make their organisation aware of it in ways that stimulate executives to interpret it and turn it into viable strategies. Corporate Prescience goes further. It requires organisations and their leaders to consider how decisions will affect generations to come. We call this the 7 th Generation. In other words, leaders have to facilitate the creation of organisations and processes that take account of and the wellbeing of the great-great-great-great grandchildren of the present generation. This requires a sense of purpose and seamless integration with the larger global society that is often still largely absent in present organisations and governments.

One of the things that makes this task so difficult is that it is necessary to consider and respond in terms of social structures, organisations, nations, groupings and systems that do not yet exist.

From the vantage point of the first decade of 2000, it may appear to be unrealistically idealistic to consider that leaders and organisations would ever consider embracing 4 th wave values and the deeds this requires. Yet there are famous historic examples where this did occur.

President Abraham Lincoln must have suffered extraordinary angst as he witnessed his country embroiled in the destruction of civil war. Yet the far reaching dream of people living free from the inhumanity of slavery burned brighter than the pain of war. It would ultimately take more than a hundred years for the fullness of civil liberties to be granted to the off spring of the slaves that were freed in the mid 1800s, but without that war it may have taken longer. In the 1950s, the ANC, and leaders like Oliver Thambo, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela, embarked upon an armed struggle against Apartheid. But, from the start they were committed to targeting non-human targets. Their deeply held belief was that the harsh system would not be removed without such pressure, but they also resisted wholesale terrorism that would inflict harm on innocents. It was only decades later when the Apartheid state had turned to hit squads, torture and murder of detainees, that the armed struggle was escalated to include human targets. It would take more than 40 years before the dream of democracy was attained, and will probably take another few generations before the legacy of Apartheid is finally eliminated. It is much too early to judge whether the premier 3 rd and 4 th wave initiative in Africa will succeed, but in the 1990s President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa

played a major role in conceptualising and establishing NEPAD – the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. But if it succeeds it will contain many of the characteristics of 3 rd and 4 th wave values and leadership, of Corporate Citizenship and Prescience. If it fails it will probably be because leaders and organisations proved to be incapable of escaping the web of 1 st and 2 nd wave values.

These examples are drawn from the deeds of leaders of governments and nations. It may still be too early to confidently identify examples from the world of business, although there are some instances where for a while leaders and their organisations do appear to have risen to this level.

When Henry Ford committed himself and his organisation to manufacture motor cars that were inexpensive enough that every worker in his factory could own one, he set a revolution in motion. When he went further to pay his employees almost twice as much as the norm he went further to transforming the world of work and relationships with employees for ever. When Bill Gates set out to fulfil his vision that there should be a PC on every office table and one in every home, he also set a revolution in motion. When Eskom, South Africa’s electricity utility, bucked every trend of the time in the mid 1980s, they were already contributing to the growth of an economy and society that no one at the time thought would be realised in their life time. They committed themselves to becoming the cheapest provider of electricity in the world; to establish a Southern African electricity grid; and to provide electricity for all South Africans. They did this at a time when they were a bloated bureaucracy and monopoly that made profits by simply putting up prices; when South Africa was effectively involved in low density war with its neighbours; and when the Apartheid government was still committed to treating the black society as second class citizens with no rights to vote, never mind having access to electricity.

It is easy to become sceptical and cynical when we try to locate enduring examples of 3 rd and especially 4 th wave values operating in modern day organisations and societies. Perhaps the slaves, colonial servants and children tied to machines in factories employing child labour felt the same in the 1850s. The African Americans must have at times despaired when the leaders of the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the 1960s were being persecuted and assassinated. When, one wonders, did Mahatma Ghandi start believing that his campaign of passive resistance was really going to bare fruit?

The good news is that there is a rapidly growing body of research and empiric evidence which demonstrates the economic impact and contribution to sustainable high performance that can be attributed to the Values Shift.

The leadership challenge is to embark upon the journey. Every lesson and experience along the way will provide new insights, create greater hope and courage, and contribute to the achievement of sustainably competitive organisations that are fit and friendly for human life.

Assessing the status of your organisation

The following assessment tool enables you to determine the extent to which your organisation currently is practicing the range of 1 st to 4 th Wave Values. NO organisation ever operates in only one or two of these waves. There is always a spread of practices and tendencies that represent at least three of the waves. Read the four sets of descriptions for any facet of the values, e.g. Power or Strategy Execution. Now allocate 10 points across the four sets of descriptions to indicate the extent to which your organisation at present fulfils three to four of these indicators. You may for instance rate your organisation as follows for various elements:






Strategy Execution





Each time your four scores must add up to ten. A spreadsheet has been provided so that you can enter your scores directly into the spreadsheet which will then generate a values profile for your organisation or a part of it.

New Economy Leadership and Values Evaluating the true values of leadership and the organisation

New Economy Leadership and Values

Evaluating the true values of leadership and the organisation

The World of Deep Values

Please use this evaluation to determine the deep underlying values that drive decisions, leadership, repsonses to the larger environment, how the organisation is managed, and how people are led within your organisation.

As you review these 4 Waves of Values, put on a “75% Hat.” In other words, ask yourself what you think the general response of 75% of the people would be if they were given the opportunity to assess the REAL as opposed to ESPOUSED values of the organisation.

Remember, the organisation’s – and our personal – values are first and foremost expressed through our individual and collective behaviours. Approaches to Management and Leadership are ultimately no more or less than the conscious or unconscious bias towards certain Waves of Values, and living those values through how we believe an organisation should be run. This will largely determine how individuals and teams exercise power, conduct performance reviews, develop people, etc.

So discuss the real-life way that things are done most of the time, and then reach a conclusion on your organisation’s REAL values. What does this say of how individuals at every level within the organisation may behave and respond?

Living the Four Waves of Values in Practice

Leadership and

Old Economy

New Economy









High involvement

Clear patterns of

Power is granted to some

Power is exercised with

leadership is

subservience and

and withheld from

and through affected

understood and

superiority exist.



practiced widely.

People with influence

People are viewed as

Privileged & informal

Skills of participative, high

practice Servant

servants to be led.

networks hold and control power.

involvement practices are very well and widely


Power is exerted by



some over others.

There are distinct

favourites and “secondary” citizens.


All levels understand


Strategy sits in the

Strategy is generally a top-

The process is well

how their roles

heads of a few people

down instruction.

established and

contribute to strategic

at the top.



Strict executive prerogative

Strategy execution is

People don’t know what


All affected stakeholders

a dynamic and

the organisation’s

can provide inputs.

ongoing process that

strategy is.

Dissent is frowned upon.

lives across all levels.


Leaders openly invite


People are expected to do as they are told.

People abdicate upwards.

disagreement and dissenting views.


People are involved

Secrecy is prevalent.

Designed for use by senior

Readily accessible and

to determine what



information is

Only the “elite” have


access to information.

Inaccessible to operational

Structured to meet the

People are equipped


needs of all users.

to use information to

Often inadequate.

guide self

Bad news is shared. Good

Continuous feedback on


People caught by

news is guarded to not

the state of the


surprise when things go badly.

raise expectations.



The hierarchy

People are expected to

Silos operate largely in

Everyone can approach

enables people to

operate through the


anyone anywhere to

advance either as

chains of command.

resolve a problem.

managers, or by

What and who is controlled

deepening their

Crossing boundaries in

determines status.

Roles are very clearly

specialist field

any direction is not

defined at each level.

without needing to


Advice from others is seen

become managers.

as interference.

Contribution determines



Leadership and

Old Economy

New Economy








Decision making

Every effort is made

Decisions are made “at

People are informed with

Well developed team

to involve people in

the top.”

no real influence allowed.

decision making skills are in place.

decisions that affect them.

People are not involved

The focus is on


Decisions have to be

Decisions get made and

enhancing value

cleared too high up or

executed at the most

streams and

Emphasis is on

by too many people.

effective level by the



people doing the work.



People often feel


The focus is on improving

The focus is on not

productivity and quality.

making mistakes.

The focus is on ensuring



Unleashing diversity

Certain types of people

Certain types of people

Diversity is seen as a core

is a significant

are excluded from important jobs.

dominate important roles.

element of sustainable competitiveness.

competitive advantage.

Conscious effort is

Overt racism and/or

Subtle racism and/or

People have astute ability

made to define and

sexism exists.

sexism exist and

to value and mine the

include the diversity


tolerated without

diversity of others – be


of all stakeholders

Groups in power are

addressing them head

that style, experience,

and communities.



race, gender, expertise,

Diversity is loved, not

homogenous in


just managed.

outlook and beliefs.

People with conflicting or


unpopular views are side lined.


The vast majority of


Change occurs through

Project management is

Change leadership is a

people are truly


seen as adequate

core leadership

change fit.

change leadership.

competence across all

Change is accepted

Managed almost entirely

levels of work.

as ongoing and

in a rational manner.

Minimal investment is


made in change

Every change process

Change does not

Human responses to change are seen as negative.

leadership competencies.

consciously invests in adequate change leadership activities.

cause mistrust or suspicion.

Change process is often


rushed or


Leadership and

Old Economy

New Economy









People consistently

Management (PM)

People have little clarity

PM consists largely of ad

PM forms an integral part

give and receive

on what is expected of them.

hoc feedback.

of the daily running of the organisation.

feedback – regardless of level or

PM does not form an


Expectations are altered

energising part of

People trust and enjoy the

The entire

without involvement.

regular work.


organisation uses PM

well, and is energised

Feedback is negligible

Feedback ratings often

PM is directly linked to

by it.

expect when things go wrong.

catch people by surprise.

strategy execution and service delivery.


Talent creation

The organisation

Development of people

The first budgets to be cut

Talented people are seen

sees itself as a portal

is a waste of time.

are for development.

as an enterprise wide

and springboard for



People who leave are

Silos hoard their talented

People who leave are

viewed as disloyal and are rejected.


Talented people are readily transferred

viewed as valuable alumni and relations

Inter-divisional talent transfers are resisted.

where most needed or best developed.

are maintained.


Every decision is


Only the direct owners or controllers of the organisation are seen

Stakeholders generally focus on competing interests.

The organisation is run with the specific intent to balance interests and


measured against the impact it will have on the “7 th Generation.”

as important.

benefit all stakeholders.

Leaders view

Power plays between

themselves as the

Fulfilling the (largely

stakeholders are

Leaders operate in ways

stewards who secure

short term) and direct


that engage and benefit

the organisation’s

interests of those with

the larger community

long term future.

power is prevalent.

The shareholders are the

beyond the usual norms

Leaders accept their

favoured and dominant

of business.

role as community

Natural and people


and global citizens.

resources are viewed

Organisations are created


as property and rights

Shareholder and executive

to be fit and friendly for

to exploit.

interests dominate.

human life.

What is your organisation’s Values Profile?

Leadership and Old Economy New Economy Organisational 1 st Wave 2 nd Wave 3 rd Wave
Leadership and
Old Economy
New Economy
1 st Wave
2 nd Wave
3 rd Wave
4 th Wave
Decision making
Management (PM)
Talent creation
4 th
Read the definitions for the four waves of values in the table and
1 st Wave
2 nd Wave
3 rd Wave

then rate your organisation by allocating 10 points across each of


the four waves for each of the Leadership and Organisational Practices. For example, your rating for the first one may look like this: