Espoused and Enacted Values in an Organization: Workforce Implications

Abstract

It would seem logical that in a perfect world, a corporation’s espoused values would match its enacted values, This match of two sets of values is also known as ‘value congruence’, a situation where the organizational values are in tune with the employees’ values. However, there are many ways by which an organization can create a tension between its espoused and practiced values. The two main reasons relate to how it conducts its business and how it treats its employees. It was observed from the Espoused Value Analysis survey that only 40 per cent of the respondents perceive the employees in their organization are aware of the vision, mission and values. The findings also suggest that when behavioural integrity is boosted, then commitment to the espoused values of the organization is enhanced. Hence, it is inferred that there is significant gap between espoused and enacted values within the sample organizations chosen for the study. Despite this lack of awareness in values, 61 per cent of the employees felt their organization does not adopt unethical means to achieve business goals. The value congruence depends on how an organization deploys its value system, practices behavioural integrity and closes the perceived gaps.

Keywords

Espoused and enacted values value congruence behavioural integrity organizational norms

Introduction

‘Verbamovent, exempla trahunt’—Words move people, examples draw/compel them. Deeds, not words, give the example.

– Latin epigraph: attributed to Cato the Elder

Organizations have one thing in common be they large or small. As a rule, they profess to do business ethically and treat their employees fairly. These after all, are the two main reasons why they exist. If we look at companies such as Johnson & Johnson, we can observe how business is done ethically. Robert Wood Johnson, former chairman from 1932 to 1963 and a member of the company’s founding family, crafted this credo in 1943 before the company went public. This was long before anyone ever heard the term ‘corporate social responsibility’. He also indicated that the credo is more than just a moral compass and added that he believed it is a recipe for business success. The fact that Johnson & Johnson is one of only a handful of companies that have flourished through more than a century of change is proof of that. The first two paragraphs of the credo which are quoted further are relevant to the issues being discussed in this article. The focus in them is on business and employees.

We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to reduce our costs in order to maintain reasonable prices. Customers’ orders must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our suppliers and distributors must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.

We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world. Everyone must be considered as an individual. We must respect their dignity and recognize their merit. They must have a sense of security in their jobs. Compensation must be fair and adequate, and working conditions clean, orderly and safe. We must be mindful of ways to help our employees fulfil their family obligations. Employees must feel free to make suggestions and complaints. There must be equal opportunity for employment, development and advancement for those qualified. We must provide competent management, and their actions must be just and ethical.

What comes out clearly is that the credo is not merely a stringing together of nice-sounding words. The underlying philosophy permeates the organization and has saved it in times of crisis. In fact, the famous Tylenol Case reflects this accurately. What happened briefly, was that during the fall of 1982, for reasons not known, a malevolent person or persons, replaced Tylenol extra-strength capsules with cyanide-laced capsules, resealed the packages, and deposited them on the shelves of at least a half-dozen or so pharmacies and food stores in the Chicago area. The poisoned capsules were purchased, and seven unsuspecting people died a horrible death. Johnson & Johnson, parent company of McNeil Consumer Products Company which makes Tylenol, suddenly, and with no warning, had to explain to the world why its trusted product was suddenly killing people.

Johnson & Johnson’s Chairman, James Burke, reacted to the negative media coverage by forming a seven-member strategy team. The team’s strategy guidance from Burke was first, ‘How do we protect the people’? and second, ‘How do we save this product’? The company’s first actions were to immediately alert consumers across the nation, via the media, not to consume any type of Tylenol product. They told consumers not to resume using the product until the extent of the tampering could be determined. Johnson & Johnson, along with stopping the production and advertising of Tylenol, withdrew all Tylenol capsules from the store shelves in Chicago and the surrounding area. After finding two more contaminated bottles, Tylenol realized the vulnerability of the product and ordered a national withdrawal of every capsule.

By withdrawing all Tylenol, even though there was little chance of discovering more cyanide-laced tablets, Johnson & Johnson showed that they were not willing to take a risk with the public’s safety, even if it costs the company millions of dollars. The end result was the public viewing Tylenol as the unfortunate victim of a malicious crime.

For us, the aforementioned incident reveals clearly the congruence between the espoused and enacted values (in terms of its business practices) of this great company. In contrast, the India-based Kingfisher Airlines had initially indicated that ‘people’ is the most important asset when it comes to delivering world class customer service. The airhostesses at Kingfisher come in contact with the customers in the process of providing the service, while the cockpit crew (pilots) contribute to the service product but do not come in direct contact with the customers. Mallya handpicks the air hostesses for his airlines. Its vision statement indicated that ‘the Kingfisher Airlines family’ will consistently deliver a value based … experience to all our guests’. The disconnect between the espoused and enacted values is now out in the open and The Hindu newspaper of 5 March carried an open letter to Mallya from the airline employees. One of the sentences in this letter reads,

Mr Mallya your heart is impure and you have blood on your hands. We have so much to tell you but you won’t have patience and time to listen all that. Please do have regret and don’t set precedents dangerous to our country and aspiring entrepreneurs. (Chandan, 2016)

Mallya owes over USD1.5 billion to various financial institutions—this amount also includes unpaid salaries to over 3,000 employees. He is now declared a wilful defaulter by the banks who lent to his company, and has escaped to London before the net closed around him. The company is non-existent.

The instances cited in the foregoing paragraphs show how things can go right if the company’s intentions are honourable and move in a totally different direction if the intentions are to ‘use’ its employees.

The section which follows puts these events into their theoretical perspectives.

Conceptual Perspectives

Values are demarcated as enduring beliefs that are personally or socially desirable, which go beyond precise situations and that direct behaviour (Rokeach, 1973). There are three ‘universal human requirements’ that use the groundwork for all values: the need for biological endurance; the plea for social communication and social demands for group wellbeing (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). If there are any stated dissimilarities in the comparative position placed on these necessities then it holds a possibility for conflict between individuals and groups.

The importance of organizational values has a prime place in numerous areas of organization comprising identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), culture (Schein, 1985), person–organization fit (Cable & Edwards, 2004) and socialization (Dose, 1997). Organizational values outline the ethical standpoint of an organization (Finegan & Theriault, 1997), employee commitment (Ostroff, Shin, & Kinicki, 2005) and associations with external ingredients (Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000). Conformity with organizational values is presented as a substitute to bureaucratic control (Ouchi, 1980). Hence, values have a wide reach in organizational domain. Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) ‘upper-echelons’ theory is grounded on the relation among organizational results and managerial values.

Members attribute the values that characterize their organization through the patterns they observe in day-to-day actions. The bigger the variance amidst espoused values and enacted values, the bigger the probability for disappointment. The gaps between the values can be felt from organizational and managerial behaviours and has wide repercussions on critical progressions and performance in organizations. Hence, integrity is a decisive component in bringing the espoused values into practice.

The word integrity stands for doing the right thing and it is frequently used with ethics. Integrity can also be observed from another angle in management. In 1999, after a Gallup Survey, a book called ‘First Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently’ was published after taking representations from thousands of research projects. The writers condensed the core management practices that discriminated the key performance teams emphasizing the importance of behavioural integrity for team performance (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, pp. 25–37).

Jack Welch, the earlier CEO of GE, acknowledged the price of integrity as a basic trait of performance. He says that the leader sets the tone. The hard working nature, the intensity and the integrity of the leader will be observed and modelled by everyone working under the leader (Welch & Byrne, 2001). Welch is not the only one who puts extraordinary significance on integrity of the leaders and managers who run the show.

In 2002, Tony Simons and Judi McLean Parks led a survey of 6,500 staff of 76 Holiday Inn hotels of the US and Canada. On a five-point scale, they enquired staff to give a rating on the close relationship among the words and deeds of their superior. The academicians then interconnected the findings of the survey with the client satisfaction surveys, employees’ performance appraisals and business performance score cards. The consequences were unmistakable. The Holiday Inn properties, where staff perceived highest behavioural integrity in management, were significantly more lucrative and productive than hotels where the perceived behavioural integrity was weakest. The survey indicated that a one-eighth-point progress on the five-point rating scale would be anticipated to escalate revenue by 2.5 per cent. It means a bottom line effect of above USD250,000 for each one-eighth-point progress. Today’s business leaders indirectly comprehend the connection among behavioural integrity and company performance and the influence it has on the bottom line.

The term ‘behavioural integrity’ (BI), is defined as the similarity among what one says and what one does. In this perspective, doing the correct thing is less significant to our perception than purely doing what you say you will do (Simons, 2002). We can call this perceived design of alignment amidst a leader’s words and conducts, the strong connect between espoused and enacted values, the psychological contracts, promise-keeping and trustworthiness as behavioural integrity. It embraces the awareness of behavioural obedience to espoused values, vision statements, mission statements, corporate value statements, descriptions of individual values, priorities or management styles, simple follow-through on communicated promises, etc. which are dire forerunners to trust and credibility.

An examination of trust and credibility highlights the value of BI in keeping the psychological contract intact by virtue of word–deed alignment.

Trust is an intricate concept that is comprehended to take account of an extensive variety of cognitions, emotions, attitudes and actions (Tyler & Kramer, 1999, pp. 216–245). Trust shows a dominant part in employment associations. There is considerable agreement that a person’s words lean towards his deeds is analytically significant for the growth of trust (McGregor, 1967). Credibility has established responsiveness (Kouzes & Posner, 1993) as a core managerial trait that is habitually challenged by managers’ word–deed misalignment. In a related disposition, psychological contracts have been undermined by the widespread downsizing and restructuring as these events are assumed by employees as violation of employers’ obligations (Robinson, 1996).

There is a plethora of definitions emphasizing on trust as an emotional state of readiness. They outline trust as the inclination of a person to be susceptible to the activities of another person grounded on the anticipation that the other will accomplish a specific action significant to the trustor, regardless of the aptitude to observe or regulate the other person (Rousseau, 1995). Robinson (1996) describes trust as one person’s belief about the probability that another’s forthcoming engagements will be favourable or at least not harmful, to one’s personal interests.

Sitkin and Roth (1993) consider reliability and goal congruity as the two unmistakable antecedents to trust and tie them to diverse hypotheses. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) present a longitudinal viewpoint for the part of BI in instituting of trust. In their theoretical structure, deterrence-based trust is based on steadiness of behaviour that individuals will perform what they say they are going to do. Lewicki and Bunker suggest a progressive expansion in work dealings from deterrence-based trust to more exclusive practices of trust. They assert that any failure at any of these classifications of trust hampers progress to the next level of trust. By this cognition, a let-down to initiate what you claim you might completely halt the progression of trust.

McAllister recommends cognition-based trust as an essential precursor to the progress of affect-based trust as individuals must be self-assured in their anticipations of another’s trustworthiness and loyalty before they create added emotional involvement in a relationship (McAllister, 1995). Mistrust, it is repeatedly said, creates mistrust (Fox, 1974). If staff are certain that their supervisors are reluctant to share with them undistorted demonstrations of their real principles, they can effortlessly conclude that their bosses do not trust them sufficient to communicate the truth.

Employees might assume value distortion with their boss from their attribution of their manager’s word–deed misalignment and, thus, come to trust that manager less. These arguments strengthen the idea that BI influence trust through professed behavioural reliability and through employee implications about bosses’ goal congruity.

Kouzes and Posner (1993) discuss that supervisors’ credibility is needed for the expansion of employee loyalty and commitment, and that its absence obstructs a manager’s efficiency, as the supervisors’ words miss command as an instrument of change. The degree to which staff are enthusiastic to be influenced by their supervisors’ words is imperative for active implementation. When credibility is given up, the leader loses that tool, and is enforced into extra engagements to display when he certainly means what he says. Kouzes and Posner argue that leaders receive and fortify their credibility when they merely do what they say they will perform.

The leader who advocates participative decision-making, but finally forces his choices on the team, then he is exposed to allegations of low BI. The same is factual of the business that pompously declares its assurance to customer service, but whose strategies, enticements and day-to-day workplace behaviour disprove that commitment. Let us think over the staff at an institution that has suffered espoused casually executed change initiatives multiple times. When they go through this, the staff becomes progressively distrustful (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). The opulent organizational announcements do not even stimulate staff anticipations and their psychological contracts.

Objectives of the Study

As indicated in the Introduction, the study was necessary to see how far employees related to espoused and enacted values in the organizations in which they worked. In other words, did they come to work with a sense of purpose, commitment and belief in the value systems or did they come to work because they had to in order to get their monthly salary. We also wanted to check if employees felt they were being treated fairly and that senior management’s assurances and promises were sacrosanct. This was especially important when there is tough competition in the market and employees are driven by their superiors to achieve targets by making promises which are later-on conveniently forgotten. From the sampling point of view, a wider range of companies would naturally provide a wider spectrum of responses which would be more relevant for the study. Focusing on one industry would automatically defeat the purpose as what we would get would be from a single perspective of a single industry.

Referring to the importance of treating employees fairly in order to generate enthusiasm, the late Professor Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business School (2005) asked,

why then do we feel surprised by the fact that executives in Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco and scores of other companies granted themselves stock options, treated their employees very badly, and took their customers for a ride when they could? Besides, the criminal misconduct of managers in a few companies is really not the critical issue. Of far greater concern is the general de-legitimization of companies as institutions and of management as a profession caused, at least in part by adoption of these ideas as taken-for-granted elements of management practice.

Research Methodology

In order to get a perspective of how industry perceives this issue of the conflict between the preached and the practiced values, we conducted an anonymous perceptual survey of employees working with different corporates. Questionnaires were mailed or personally given to them and the results were analysed using the factor analysis method.

The questionnaire (Appendix A) was prepared based on the literature review. It was clearly indicated to the potential respondents that the information received would be kept confidential and used for academic purposes only. The questions were to be answered on a scale of 1–5 where 1 stood for ‘Strongly Agree’ and 5 for ‘Strongly Disagree’.

Sample

The questionnaires were sent to 160 employees of 130 companies. We were ideally trying to get a usable sample of 125–150 completed questionnaires. Ultimately, we received 149 usable questionnaires. The respondents were spread across various industries as we felt that this would give a broader perspective. The levels tapped into were from senior-level, middle-level and entry-level management.

Tools Applied

Factor analysis was used to infer relationship and patterns between the explicitly stated values and enacted values. Constructs related to fitment of espoused values were drawn by using the factor analysis method. Principal component method was used to extract factors. The results of espoused value analysis are interpreted through charts. Varimax rotation is used to confirm the identification of factors that leads to espoused values. The mean scores of perception survey were compared according to gender, age and work experience.

Empirical Result

The primary objective of the study was to examine how clearly values were being embodied by the organizations and how appropriately the values were practised at all levels. The espoused value analysis survey encompassed 15 variables that corresponded to examining the gap between espoused and enacted values. The variables are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Variables of Espoused Value Analysis

1	Conformance with enacted values	6	Ethical perception about top management	11	Perceived organizational support
2	Participative value setting	7	Word deed alignment	12	Value checks and balances
3	Enacted values	8	Promise-keeping	13	Person–organization value fitment
4	Recognizing and rewarding enacted values	9	Organizational citizenship behaviour	14	Perception of fairness
5	Trustworthiness	10	Ethical management	15	Employee loyalty

Source: The authors.

Discussion

Figure 1 shows the survey results of 149 respondents from various companies across industries.

It was observed that only 40 per cent of the respondents perceive the employees in their organization are aware of the vision, mission and values. Almost 50 per cent of the respondents felt the employees take active part in value setting. The perception on motivating employees to follow value systems stands at 45 per cent. It is found that the result on trust between top management and employees is only 38 per cent. It indicates that the perceived patterns of alignment between top management and employees, manager’s words and promise-keeping is a major concern. Hence, it is inferred that there is a significant gap between espoused and enacted values within the sample organizations chosen for the study.

Despite the lack of awareness in values, 61 per cent of the employees felt their organization does not adopt unethical means to achieve business goals. Furthermore, 45 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that their organization supports them to follow ethical standards even at the cost of a business loss. About 50 per cent of the employees agreed that their organizations have in-built mechanisms to audit violation of value systems. The perception on organizations adopting utmost fairness in recruitment, appraisal and compensation stood at 43 per cent. The probe on whether employees stay with the organization in times of crisis such as negative media coverage and allegations on top management showed 45 per cent agreement among the respondents. The findings suggest that when BI is boosted, then commitment to espoused values of the organization can be enhanced.

Comparison on Perception of Values based on Gender, Age and Work Experience

BI is an important element for transformational leadership that leads to appropriate practice of espoused values. The research examines the gender, age and work experience as moderators of espoused and enacted values. The survey results were compared within each category to determine variation in perception of value systems.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Table 2 shows the comparison of mean scores of the survey results according to gender, Table 3 is an age wise comparison of means and Table 4 is a comparison of means according to work experience.Around 80 per cent of the respondents are male and 20 per cent are female. The study examined the fit between employee perceptions of espoused and enacted organizational values between male and female employees. The analysis of mean results shows the perception of values among female employees is higher than males. The standard deviation of mean score varies between 1.39 and 1.389, 1.02 and 1.3 for female and male employees, respectively.

Table 2.

Gender-wise Comparisons of Means

Gender		Que 1	Que 2	Que 3	Que 4	Que 5	Que 6	Que 7	Que 8	Que 9	Que 10	Que 11	Que 12	Que 13	Que 14	Que 15
0	Mean	3.57	2.79	3.50	3.50	3.46	3.43	2.75	2.93	2.54	2.68	3.54	2.82	2.93	3.25	3.46
0	N	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28	28
	Std. Deviation	1.168	1.315	1.171	1.139	1.261	1.260	1.351	1.215	1.201	1.467	1.232	1.389	1.331	1.378	1.347
1	Mean	2.75	2.64	2.68	2.63	2.76	2.64	2.64	2.69	2.63	2.43	2.59	2.61	2.75	2.76	2.64
1	N	121	120	120	121	121	121	121	121	121	121	121	121	121	120	121
	Std. Deviation	1.128	1.002	1.137	1.104	1.176	1.203	1.024	1.139	1.096	1.477	1.269	1.300	1.286	1.264	1.225
Total	Mean	2.91	2.67	2.84	2.79	2.89	2.79	2.66	2.74	2.61	2.48	2.77	2.65	2.79	2.85	2.79
Total	N	149	148	148	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	148	149
	Std. Deviation	1.176	1.065	1.184	1.158	1.220	1.248	1.088	1.153	1.113	1.473	1.312	1.315	1.292	1.296	1.285

Source: The authors.

Notes: *0—Female, 1—Male.

Table 3.

Age-wise Comparison of Means

Age		Que1	Que2	Que3	Que4	Que5	Que6	Que7	Que8	Que9	Que10	Que11	Que12	Que13	Que14	Que15
0	Mean	2.99	2.69	2.91	2.84	2.94	2.88	2.66	2.67	2.55	2.48	2.90	2.58	2.77	2.96	2.98
0	N	86	85	85	86	86	86	86	86	86	86	86	86	86	85	86
	Std. Deviation	1.193	1.124	1.269	1.206	1.259	1.269	1.154	1.183	1.175	1.469	1.320	1.297	1.280	1.358	1.328
1	Mean	2.80	2.67	2.78	2.78	2.82	2.65	2.62	2.80	2.62	2.55	2.71	2.82	2.76	2.64	2.51
1	N	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55
	Std. Deviation	1.161	.963	1.049	1.083	1.140	1.190	.933	1.061	.991	1.501	1.242	1.348	1.319	1.176	1.184
2	Mean	2.86	2.43	2.43	2.43	3.14	2.86	3.14	3.14	3.14	1.86	1.86	2.43	3.14	3.14	2.86
2	N	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
	Std. Deviation	1.215	1.272	1.272	1.272	1.345	1.574	1.464	1.574	1.215	1.464	1.464	1.272	1.464	1.464	1.345
3	Mean	2.00	2.00	3.00	2.00	1.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	4.00	3.00	1.00	1.00	3.00	3.00	2.00
3	N	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	Std. Deviation	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Total	Mean	2.91	2.67	2.84	2.79	2.89	2.79	2.66	2.74	2.61	2.48	2.77	2.65	2.79	2.85	2.79
Total	N	149	148	148	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	148	149
	Std. Deviation	1.176	1.065	1.184	1.158	1.220	1.248	1.088	1.153	1.113	1.473	1.312	1.315	1.292	1.296	1.285

Source: The authors.

Notes: *0—less than 30 years old, 1—31 to 40 years, 2—41 to 50 years, 3—51 years and above.

Table 4.

Comparison of Means According to Work Experience

Work Experience		Que 1	Que 2	Que 3	Que 4	Que 5	Que 6	Que 7	Que 8	Que 9	Que 10	Que 11	Que 12	Que 13	Que 14	Que 15
0	Mean	2.93	2.66	2.85	2.81	2.95	2.77	2.60	2.69	2.57	2.38	2.73	2.59	2.74	2.81	2.80
	N	115	114	114	115	115	115	115	115	115	115	115	115	115	114	115
	Std. Deviation	1.197	1.055	1.192	1.169	1.220	1.207	1.058	1.135	1.140	1.436	1.313	1.304	1.278	1.268	1.292
1	Mean	2.70	2.61	2.70	2.52	2.61	2.78	2.78	2.91	2.61	2.57	2.78	2.61	2.78	3.00	2.57
	N	23	2.3	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23
	Std. Deviation	1.146	1.158	1.185	1.039	1.196	1.476	1.204	1.125	.988	1.562	1.313	1.270	1.278	1.446	1.237
2	Mean	3.33	3.11	3.22	3.33	3.00	3.22	3.22	3.22	3.11	3.67	3.33	3.67	3.56	3.00	3.33
	N	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9
	Std. Deviation	1.000	1.054	1.202	1.323	1.414	1.302	1.202	1.394	1.167	1.414	1.414	1.414	1.509	1.414	1.414
3	Mean	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.50	2.50	2.00	2.50	1.50	2.50	1.50	2.00	2.00	2.00	3.00	2.50
	N	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
	Std. Deviation	.000	.000	.000	.707	.707	.000	.707	.707	.707	.707	.000	.000	.000	1.414	.707
Total	Mean	2.91	2.67	2.84	2.79	2.89	2.79	2.66	2.74	2.61	2.48	2.77	2.65	2.79	2.85	2.79
	N	149	148	148	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	149	148	149
	Std. Deviation	1.176	1.065	1.184	1.158	1.220	1.248	1.088	1.153	1.113	1.473	1.312	1.315	1.292	1.296	1.285

Source: The authors.

Notes: * 0—less than 5 years, 1—6 to 10 years, 2—11 to 15 years, 3—more than 16 years.

The referent power of leaders is inherent in setting the values of an organization. The leaders act as preachers and role models of an organization’s values. The employees’ perception is that their leader’s enacting values lead to desirable implementation of espoused values at all levels. The study also focused on identifying the espoused and enacted value perspectives of different age groups.

To understand the perception of employees at various levels, the mean scores are compared according to age. Classification of respondents is done by using four bands, that is, less than 30 years old, 31–40 years, 41–50 years and more than 51 years old. The mean score for the age group of less than 30 years is greater for all variables except promise-keeping, organizational citizenship behaviour, immoral management and value violation mechanism. It is observed that the BI and mechanisms to address violation of values are critical success factors to bridge the gap between espoused and enacted values. The mean score for the age group 31–40 years is lower than the scores for the age group above 41 years for most of the variables. Hence, it is inferred that a wide difference in perception of values persist among employees in various age groups.

Table 5.

Component Matrix

	Component
	1	2	3
Que 1	0.728	0.231	0.231
Que 2	0.316	0.484	0.544
Que 3	0.789	0.299	0.086
Que 4	0.810	0.171	0.123
Que 5	0.773	0.090	0.422
Que 6	0.744	0.295	0.322
Que 7	0.338	0.307	0.763
Que 8	0.356	0.257	0.787
Que 9	0.026	0.466	0.568
Que 10	0.273	0.788	0.310
Que 11	0.645	0.581	0.066
Que 12	0.252	0.830	0.263
Que 13	0.272	0.687	0.437
Que 14	0.708	0.070	0.422
Que 15	0.646	0.427	0.185

Source: The authors.

The research examines the effect of work experience on the perception of values. The respondents are classified into four categories, that is, 0–5 years, 6–10 years, 11–15 years and more than 16 years of work experience. The mean score for employees with 11–15 years of experience is more than employees with 6–10 years of experience. No definitive pattern is observed between the means of less than 5 years and 6–10 years of work experience.

Factor Analysis

The variables congruent to espoused values are analysed together to extract the underlying factors. We attempt to extract three constructs from the identified set of 15 variables. These constructs would enable the organizations to create company-wide standards for implementing values. The findings will also facilitate the organizations to create mechanisms for employees to enact the espoused values and create a conducive organizational climate.

Establishing the Strength of the Factor Analysis Solution

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was applied to measure the sampling adequacy. The obtained KMO statistics (0.913) is greater than 0.5, indicating that factor analysis could be used for the survey results. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to identify whether the variables are highly correlated. The result indicates that the correlation coefficient matrix is significant as indicated by the p value corresponding to the chi-square statistic. The p value is 0.000, which is less than 0.05, the assumed level of significance. It indicates the existence of patterned relationship among the variables of espoused values.

Factor Extraction

Principal component’s analysis was used to extract maximum variance from the data set with each component, thus reducing a large number of variables into three factors. Total variance analysis shows that the three identified factors contributed 71.9 per cent of the variance. Each factor defines a distinct cluster of interrelated variables related to espoused values. Varimax rotation was used to confirm the factor loading. Cross loading of a few variables has been ignored due to the latent nature of the variable on the principles of value system. The results of rotated component matrix are tabulated in Table 5.

Table 5 shows the factor loading matrix of survey results. A cut-off point of 0.5 is considered to cluster the variables under the three factors, that is, approach and deployment of enacted values, BI and perceived gap analysis.

List of Factors and Variables

The value congruence was tested based on the 15 components mentioned further which were further clustered into three main factors.

Factor 1: Approach and Deployment of Enacted Values

Conformance with enacted values

Enacted values

Recognizing and rewarding enacted values

Trustworthiness

Ethical perception about top management

Perception of fairness

Employee loyalty

Factor 2: Behavioural Integrity

Ethical management

Perceived organizational support

Value checks and balances.

Person–organization value fitment

Factor 3: Perceived Gap Analysis

Participative value setting

Word deed alignment

Organizational citizenship behaviour

Conclusions

The article has clearly brought out the importance of having a strong value congruence which percolates to the lowest level of employees. The study brought out the fact that employees surveyed, may sometimes not comprehend in totality the vision, mission and values of the organization. However, in spite of this they perceive their organizations as being ethical. This shows that if benefit is made by the organization to appraise employees at the induction level on the vision, mission and values, a much deeper value system can be established which is understood by everyone. The companies which did not give this sufficient importance such as Volkswagen, Enron and BP, went into a downward spiral. Enron in fact did not come out of this and the other two are now struggling to regain their brand equity and ethical values. General Motors also hit problems which the newly appointed CEO Mary Barra had to grapple with and resolve. Companies like Proctor and Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Hindustan Unilever and Tata Sons have consistently tried to focus on their value system even during turbulent times. This is one of the main reasons why they have managed to survive for such a long period of corporate history. Therefore, value congruence is a mainstay for organizational sustainability. These are companies which have proved their worth by surviving all types of turbulences in the external environment by strictly adhering to their value systems. Values can be viewed as a lifeline to which the company can cling when matters are not proceeding smoothly. The culture of these companies acts as a type of safety net which will prevent them from taking unethical actions, however great the temptations.

The statistical analysis clearly showed that the value congruence depended on how an organization deploys its value systems, practices BI and closes the perceived gaps. These factors would facilitate the organizations to create companywide standards for implementing values. The profitability of the company is also a part of this process. That is, values cannot be viewed in isolation and that visionary companies where the value congruence is high, ignore profitability. As Collins and Porras (1994) said,

profitability is a necessary condition for existence and a means to more important ends, but it is not the end in itself for many of the visionary companies. Profit is like oxygen, food, water, and blood for the body; they are not the point of life, but without them, there is no life.

Robert Johnson Jr in 1935 echoed these sentiments in a philosophy called ‘enlightened self-interest’ wherein ‘service to customers comes first… service to management and employees second, and … service to stockholders last’.

As William R Hewlett, Cofounder, HP Company said in 1990,

As I look back on my life’s work, I’m probably most proud of having helped to create a company that by virtue of its values, practices, and success has had a tremendous impact on the way companies are managed around the world. And I’m particularly proud that I’m leaving behind an ongoing organization that can live on as a role model long after I’m gone.

These words are prophetic in their wisdom and sums up the entire study which we undertook and which has been elaborated in the earlier pages.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Questionnaire

Please respond to each statement further according to the extent to which you feel it describes your company. Click on the selection that most closely describes your response.

Please do not leave any answers blank.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

, & Mael

F. A.

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Buckingham

, & Coffman

(1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Cable

D. M.

, & Edwards

J. R.

(2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834.

Chandan

(2016, March 5). KFA employees write open letter to Vijay Mallya. The Hindu. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/

Collins

J. C.

, & Porras

J. I.

(1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Dose

J. J.

(1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(3), 219–240.

Finegan

, & Theriault

(1997). The relationship between personal values and the perception of the corporation’s code of ethics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(8), 708–724.

Fox

(1974). Beyond contract: Work, power, and trust relations. London, UK: Faber and Faber Limited.

Ghoshal

(2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.

10.

Hambrick

D. C.

, & Mason

P. A.

(1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

11.

Kanter

D. L.

, & Mirvis

P. H.

(1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Kouzes

J. M.

, & Posner

B. Z.

(1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Lewicki

R. J.

, & Bunker

B. B.

(1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In Kramer

& Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

14.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

15.

McGregor

(1967). The professional manager. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

16.

Ostroff

, Shin

, & Kinicki

A. J.

(2005). Multiple perspectives of congruence: Relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 591–623.

17.

Ouchi

W. G.

(1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.

18.

Robinson

S. L.

(1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.

19.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

20.

Rousseau

(1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

21.

Schein

E. H.

(1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Schwartz

S. H.

, & Bilsky

(1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.

23.

Simons

(2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1).

24.

Sitkin

S. B.

, & Roth

N. L.

(1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘remedies’ for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367–392.

25.

Tyler

, & Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

26.

Voss

G. B.

, Cable

D. M.

, & Voss

Z. G.

(2000). Linking organizational values to relationships with external constituents: A study of non-profit professional theatres. Organization Science, 11(3), 330–347.

27.

Welch

, & Byrne

A. J.

(2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York, NY: Warner Business Books.