The Truth About Corporate Values

I’m sitting in our apartment listening to Opeth, wearing a Nirvana t-shirt, and sipping a diet off-brand soda.  What story does that tell? While most of those casual behaviors are ultra superficial, you might extract something profoundly authentic about who I am. And if you gathered that I have an attraction to the unconventional and risk-takers, you might be on to something. 

Corporate value statements aren’t unconventional. Bluntly, they feel a little gross in general. At their worst, they’re self-righteous virtual signals detached entirely from the actual behaviors of the organization. This stuff can feel more P.R. man than headbanger who’s lost his luscious locks to the inevitability of time.

Actions Define Your Values, Not a Poster on the Wall

Yeah, I’ve read the posters. One of them emphatically told me to “Question the insanity!” amongst other things. The charitable signage even offered appeals to why this was a good thing for the business. That’s cool, but why’s there insanity to question? I followed my benevolent wall art’s edict to the letter. 

“Why are we using a rules engine to define complex but largely static business processes?”

“Why aren’t we fixing breaking and blocking bugs before release?”

“Why aren’t our subject-matter experts helping us define our acceptance criteria for new features?”

“Why do we keep rolling out to new regions when current ticket data suggests that my entire team will be consumed by application support requests within the next six months?”

“Are you sure we’re being Agile and not just doing Agile?”

Thankfully, I was finally asked to attend an executive meeting with a fancy executive consultant. I was asked by the consultant for a few support metrics. I responded. He then asked what needed to happen to get out of the insanity. I responded. 

Two weeks later, my team was “restructured,” and I was out of a job. 

Ooof.

That was a long time ago now. But the experience made a lasting impression. I’m sure the CEO believed those value statements. Maybe even wanted them to be a clear reflection of the organization he was leading. If not in reality, in a fantasy. And there’s nothing wrong with a dream. 

The hard truth is that those values were not a reflection of the behaviors of the organization. They weren’t even aspirational values that were actively being coached. The values were merely propaganda.

They shot the messenger. And the messenger was me. 

Full-Circle Up-Down Left & Right

Years and other trials later, I now know that shooting the messenger is a trait of a power-oriented culture. And power-oriented cultures radically underperform so-called generative cultures. That feels like some kind of justice. 

In generative cultures, messengers are trained to correct problems and failures, notably to influence obstructionists struggling with fear and power greed. I’ll do a series on the traits of cultures as laid out in A typology of organisational cultures. Stay tuned.

A miracle of circumstances, people, and environments gave me a chance in 2016 to transform a team around the behaviors of a generative culture. What’s more, it worked! Astonishingly, I now have the opportunity to work with those involved to launch Merely, Inc.

Bottom-Up is Dead On Arrival

Driving this kind of change doesn’t work bottom-up. If the messengers get shot, there can be no revolution. The nature of power is singular and exclusive. Power will not tolerate perceived threats and will employ creative means to ensure the illusion of agreement. Novelties will be crushed as soon as they’re detected. 

There just isn’t a way to get momentum. The risks for all who would join you are too significant. These organizations refine the art of constructive dismissal. 

‍Boss: “Hey Liz, I’ve got a great opportunity for you! You know project trojan pony? I think your ideas could really turn it around! This is a chance for you to really make an impact.”

‍
Everyone watches as you are given all the accountability with no actual ownership. The project was too far gone to rescue, and you are made the fool. And everyone learns what happens to those who challenge the status quo. 

Top-Down Challenges in Power-Oriented Organizations

It might seem natural to conclude that top-down reformation is the only way to get anywhere in toxic, dysfunctional, and under-performing organizations. While there is technically a path to change from the top, it isn’t likely, and the change will be expensive for everyone. 

Top-Down Arrogance:

Keep in mind, this is a power-oriented culture. Even if the CEO comes in with sweeping reforms, those reforms are carried out by the same people who created or participated in the old ways. Now, a situation like this emerges:

Boss: “You’ve gotta trust me, the team, and the process.” 

‍Employee: No, no, I don’t. Trust is earned.”

‍Boss: “You need to calm down.” 

‍Employee: I am calm.

‍Boss: “You need to be respectful.”

‍Employee: Wait, what? Who are you to talk about respect? You won’t even let Beth finish a sentence in meetings!

This middle manager only knows how to play the game. The gamesmanship will keep his management off his back. But the employee isn’t going to trust any change coming from a hypocritical and incompetent authority figure. So, top-down dies. A year later, the new CEO is now the old CEO. Everything goes back to the way it was, if it ever changed at all.

Hatchets and Axes

Pathological cultures don’t have the knowledge or tools to manage out their own pathologies. If you want to make any sweeping change, you’ve got to get out the right tools. Sometimes, the only means available are destructive. In that case, there will be collateral damage. Shareholders, managers, and employees will all lose confidence. The old ways were frustrating and limiting but stable. Now, who knows what’ll happen? This isn’t usually viable. 

The Long Game

The long game is viable. But doesn’t suit businesses in markets that require responsiveness. When your competition is growing revenues and profits 70% faster than you are, you won’t be in the game for long. A big organization with a stable market share can take the long game approach top-down. Slowly weeding out those who can’t contribute to the change and coaching those who are willing and able to be coached. 

Third Way: Relationship -> Community -> Culture

If bottom-up and top-down change is generally doomed, what else is there? I’ll be honest, I think most of the time it’s impossible. I’ve been a part of many pathological and bureaucratic organizations. You often have to resolve to get what you want out of the experience while you look for a more mature organization to join. But if any chance exists in reforming the culture, it starts with building communities within the organization. 

Communities are forged by one-to-one relationships, group relationships, and shared purpose expressed in action. Within the community, the practices that define culture can be nurtured. These communities can be built around any shared purpose: learning new tech, charitable causes, or shared interests like art. The shared purpose does require the opportunity to act together. It’s in shared purpose and shared actions that culture can emerge. 

For that community to grow in the direction of a generative culture, it must have these qualities:

• Ownership (the ability to decide and act) is spread around. 
• Responsibility (acting on commitments) is shared.
• Accountability (transparent inspection) is embraced. 
  

That’s the story of Merely in a nutshell. We are a community of developers and technology professionals that emerged from shared experiences, relationships, community, and purpose, which created a generative culture. It's been the act of unlikely coincidences and circumstances that lead us back together at this moment in time. And I couldn’t be more grateful!

Merely Values

Our values are our primary source of accountability. They are the measuring stick for our decisions, direction, and action. They’re also the distillation of observed behavior while working together in the past. While I know that we won’t always measure up, I know that each team member is committed to helping us all stay true to our vision.

The Three Core Values

• Clarity
• Responsibility
• Empowerment
  

Clarity

From our code to the pricing model of our upcoming products, clarity is our consuming pursuit. Here are some of the ways we express the centrality of clarity:

• We believe that our software’s core business logic should sound nearly indistinguishable from a subject-matter expert explaining their processes. 
  
• We believe goals defined without specific responses to market challenges are meaningless fantasies. A goal must be backed by a sound strategy to achieve it. 
  
• We believe that customers should know what capabilities they are paying for without navigating lists of feature matrices, complex pricing tiers, or be forced to talk to sales to get a price. Pricing is an experiment we embrace. Getting it wrong is up to us to deal with in the light of day. 
  
• We believe our employees shouldn’t be wondering if they are being compensated more or less than their peers. Compensation is transparent and algorithmic. 

Responsibility

Responsibility is a word that takes on different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes it’s used to communicate ownership, “It’s my responsibility to decide what goes on the product backlog!” Or it can mean a duty, “It was your responsibility to take out the trash!” Often these uses of responsibility have an all-or-nothing undercurrent.

When we talk about responsibility, we mean acting on our commitments. To understand the subtlety we are trying to express, we have to talk about commitment. 

Commitments aren’t statements of certainty or promises in our culture. “Dedicated action toward a cause” would be a more suitable phrase. If we commit a user story to a sprint, we aren’t saying that we will finish it come hell or high water. We’re saying that we will take reasonable and sustainable action toward completing it. Moreover, we are committed to communicating risks and impediments daily. And we will help each other overcome any barriers and share in the risk.

Successful sprint planning, retrospective, iteration, and production results from the team’s shared responsibility. It takes all of us working together in dedication to the common cause. 

Empowerment

We talked earlier about the debilitating behaviors of power-oriented cultures. So, why would empowerment be one of our values? It’s about who has what power. 

The priest, the book, or the congregation? 

Power, bureaucracy, or the people? 

The icon, the rules, or everyone? 

The boss, the job description, or all of us?

Broadly, power is an infinitely complex problem to solve. In our culture, we’ve taken this approach:

If you are expected to give an account for results, you have the power, freedom, and safety to decide and act. 

In other words, you’re only accountable for those things you have ownership over. And ownership is the authority to decide and act.

Here are some simple ways this manifests:

• The product owner (Product Manager) decides what goes into the product backlog.
• The development team decides which stories go into a sprint.
• A team manager is given a budget to use as they see fit.
• A developer working on a story decides how the work gets done within the guardrails of the team’s mutually agreed-upon definition of done and working agreement.
• Anyone capable and available may work on any task or story, contribute to any module, and cross any functional boundaries within the scope of The Product.
  

Central to this value is the belief that it is unethical to demand accountability without ownership. 

Follow Merely’s Progress

Let us know what you think about our take on clarity, responsibility, and empowerment. We’d love to hear your battle stories and transformational victories!

If you’d like to follow our progress week-by-week, sign up for our newsletter.