Leverage Weekly #66 - Company values
tl;dr - Values can be shortcuts that encode culture-wide tradeoffs
Many people believe that “mission statements,” “team-building exercises,” and above all, “company values,” are just a bunch of a fluff, empty words with no referent in reality. If that’s true, it might be better to dispense with such things. Organizations, I have argued, are machines made of people, and well-designed machines don’t have extra parts.
Looking closer, one can find a ready rationale for mission statements and team-building exercises. “Mission statements” are statements of a company’s mission. Companies, especially non-profits, benefit from having a mission; stating that mission clearly, in the form of a “mission statement,” is a natural step. Team-building exercises are meant to do just that: increase cohesion among a group of people, helping to make them into a team. Some team-building activities may be ineffective, but the category of activity has a clear rationale.
Least clear, of the three elements of culture mentioned above, are values. Company values, such as those displayed on a website or emphasized in official communications, are sometimes chosen solely for the purpose of making people feel good or signaling allegiance to one or another group. Yet company values are actually a powerful tool that can be deployed to great effect within an organization, if one understands what they are, how they should be selected, and how they can be used.
At their core, values represent a stance towards particular tradeoffs. When a decision maker considers options, each option usually represents some sort of tradeoff. One option may be to go fast but cut corners: good on speed, bad on quality. Another may involve being careful but spending resources; good on quality, bad on price. Different values suit different circumstances. “Speed” may be an appropriate value for a 24-hour print shop but not a rare antiques store.
Values can be thought of as shortcuts. Rather than engaging in a lengthy deliberative process, values can provide a simple argument for selecting one option rather than another. A research organization may face the question of whether to track down an elusive paper; if the organization has the value of “thoroughness,” the answer will probably be yes. By having values and teaching team members to invoke them, it is possible to cut through deliberations and get to an answer very quickly.
The ability to cut to an answer is a very powerful one. Values, therefore, should not be chosen lightly. Instead, each company should consider carefully which shortcuts its staff should be empowered to use. Should team members be empowered with the “generosity” shortcut? Or the “speed” shortcut? Or the “endurance” shortcut? Rather than fluff, values are are special type of wiring that make it easier to have more people able to make decisions within an organization and greater alignment between them.
To find candidates for values, one can think about the challenges that one’s organization is likely to face, and what organizations with similar missions are likely to do wrong. One can also think about the persistent temptations that one’s team will face and what sorts of values will buttress them against those temptations. Values, of course, must match the organization and team for whom they are the values, and in some cases, values must emerge as an organization to constitute itself properly and make progress on its mission.
Ultimately, it is important that every value represent a choice to pursue one valuable thing and sacrifice another. One should always ask: “By selecting this value, what I am giving up?” This can be difficult, since there is a natural human tendency to want to “get it all”; one solution for this is to remember that organizations are limited-purpose vehicles, and that if one wants to pursue another goal, one can always create another organization.
Values can be shortcuts that encode culture-wide tradeoffs.
The Leverage team’s focus is now divided across several related subjects. Some effort is going into support for the Quantum Biology Institute. The week before last, this included planning a website refresh by Oliver, fundraising efforts by Anna, tax law support by Melinda, and the weekly presentation by Geoff. The presentation was on the topic of company values; during the discussion, the QBI team selected the value “scientific rigor.”
Outside of QBI, the Leverage team has begun paying attention to the institutional and technical barriers to progress in quantum biology. Regarding the institutional, there is a question of how the Quantum Biology DAO will end up working, but Leverage itself has taken no actions there. With respect to the technical, Geoff and Oliver are now learning some molecular biology as Cliff conducts his investigation into plausible causal mechanisms for weak magnetic field effects in biology.
Zooming out even more, Oliver’s investigation into scientific dysfunction continues. So far, he has covered the economics of scientific instruments, trends pertaining to the use of money in science, and the change in scientific standards over time. The week before last, Oliver began delving into the science itself.
Apart from that, the team has continued its other work. Melinda created the Leverage Library for books and papers the institute purchases, Oliver has been reading about nucleonics, and Geoff was possibly unproductive, it’s hard to tell. Also, the team experienced time dilation for reasons that are quite unknown, which may account for the schedule being a bit thrown off.
Note: This Leverage Weekly covers the week of May 12-16.