Mandy/Cliff e-mail Exchange Re Use of Values Assessment Tool for Offsite

Hi Mandy. Sorry we’re having a hard time coming together. I’ve responded to your questions below. Where I am on whether to use the tool or not at this point is generally “I’m on the fencepost.” I’m not married to the idea of using it, certainly. Below I’ve played devil’s advocate on both sides of the question. I hope you find this thinking useful in the absence of a more fluid telephone discussion.

MANDY Question 1
1 - the values assessment looks like a tool for culture change. From the examples I've seen I am having a hard time imagining how it would be helpful to a group that's establishing something brand-new. I imagine you have some ideas about that. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

CLIFF Answer
You are correct, and…yes, I have some thoughts. It has great use as a culture change tool, which is a common and recognized need in organizations (and so a good marketing approach). However, what it is, essentially and simply, is a values assessment (change effort pending or not) which helps individuals, groups, teams, and organizations identify “what is” at any given moment in time. It has great use in the forming stage of organizations, for example, as a tool used pre-mergers (a term I detest b/c mergers are often described as “merger of equals” which is BS – one or the other is acquiring the other, but I digress). In the “merger” example, you have two groups with established cultures coming together to form one entity. It’s extremely useful to identify in that case who brings what values to the table for the new culture, and to acknowledge those strengths. And of course, the Desired Culture is a great place to start a conversation about how to create that vision for a newly forming post-“merger” organization. In a way, we’re a bunch of individuals merging. When I read Sartaj’s note on the google group today, I was aware that we are already having a discussion about individual values (what we bring and the Current Culture embodied by values we think we are seeing, hearing, and feeling). Let me pull a piece from Sartaj’s message to illustrate:
“ One "fear" I have heard from some is whether this is too "spiritual" to be successful in a "material" world. We need to fuse the material- spiritual to achieve perfection with this effort. In that context, I am all for using the existing best management/governance practices, operational processes and technology to get to where we would like to.”
One benefit of assessing values is that it would identify and illustrate this perceived imbalance if it exists, very powerfully. We might see a concentration of values in Levels 5-7 and a lower concentration of values (and perhaps some potentially limiting values) in the Levels 1-3 if we were exclusively spiritually focused. Also, it would be useful to compare the consolidated Personal Values with the Desired Culture. The discussion then, becomes more focused (values, while ambiguous in some ways, are still measurable by consensus) and the group can have very focused and meaningful conversations about what these words mean and how to achieve “full spectrum consciousness.”

MANDY QUESTION 2
2 - I'm wondering if the tool might be more useful once we've made some calls about who's participating and at what level. It strikes me as a very defining sort of activity. I'm not sure this is the right time in the group's history to get to that level of specificity. Maybe it would be more useful once there is an established core group who is definitely in and ready to define things at a further level of detail.

CLIFF Answer 2
This is a great insight and it’s certainly one way to proceed. Another way to look at it is that we’re all making a certain commitment and investment to come together around an idea. While I want to avoid sounding like a sales-person for this tool, it may provide a useful way to get important information “out” for focused discussions about “what is” and what the desired future is so that individual can make educated decisions for themselves about whether or not to participate.

MANDY Question 3
3 - in your experience, how does the analytical nature of the tool fit with the distinctly non-analytical nature of "values"? I don't know if this question makes sense... might be an easier one to discuss in conversation rather than in print.

CLIFF Answer 3
No, I completely get your question and it’s brilliant. You are so right, values are very personal and non-analytical. “Accountability” in one culture or organizational system as compared to another may look very different. However, the tool provides a way to direct energy around common terms, from which individuals, teams, and organizations embark on a language clarification process around key terms. This process in and of itself, has the effect of surfacing and dealing with underlying assumptions and beliefs, and creating improved intentionality for decisions and actions. In some ways, again, this is already happening in ad hoc discussions in our common blog/google groups space. For example, Sartaj, in his recent communication surfaced the paradox of structure and emergence regarding how the agenda will be treated:
“Now on the specifics of the agenda vs. open-space (not sure if this is what it is officially called) my philosophical view is to hold the paradox of "intentionality" and "letting-go" (or not being attached to a process or outcome) in operation. (I met a terrific person at a strozzi course this past week who is a quaker and I was fascinated to hear about how they stay silent in their meetings till they "quake" and are called by the Divine-my word, to channel God's message.)
How about us all holding a very structured intention (which is to decide whether one is in or out of Begumpura for now) and an agenda that has a lot of space for what Mike is saying (be quiet and see what emerges) but also makes sure we address some key questions (in a very rationalistic, conventional but "open to the flow" way) that people want to know answers to (at least directional answers) before they are ready to commit to make this a go? I also like Mandy's notion of touching base every so often to see where we are individually and what questions we are sitting in that will help drive us to our decision.”
I guess this makes me question doing a values assessment if we are already surfacing values and fears – in ways that are transparent. We’re not that large a group and the blog/communications/retreat may be serving the purpose of language and values clarification just fine. Personally, I’m intrigued by the conversations that are happening already. My experience in most organizations -- new and mature -- is that there isn’t the level of honesty present that we seem to have (and honesty involves competing values of “candor” and “diplomacy”). One example of this is how the issue of balancing tangibles and intangible considerations such as mission/spirituality AND reality/material considerations. This process along is surfacing our need to manage a key polarity around a value of traditional “tight” approach to “taking care of business” and a more “loose” emergent approach that sets us apart from the norm. The upside of the value of “tight” is that we have CLARITY. The upside of “loose” is we have FLEXIBILITY. However, there are legitimate fears expressed regarding the downside of the “tight” approach – that we aren’t unique or that we’re acting rigid – not the desired spirit for Begumpura. There are also fears that being overly emergent and spiritual could lead to us being an ambiguous group of naïve daydreamers. Every organization deals with this polarity (more or less well), and we seem to approaching it head on. For me, this is the biggest reason not to proceed with an assessment in the short-term is that we’re essentially assessing our values openly on an ongoing basis.

Gotta run for now. I hope this helps in the time before our call!

Cliff