Advertisement

Leadership OS pp 169-183 | Cite as

Values

  • Nik Kinley
  • Shlomo Ben-Hur
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, the authors introduce the fourth component of clarity in their Leadership OS model—values. Using both their own and previous research, they describe the social and neural underpinnings of values and the functions it plays in a leaders’ Operating System—how it affects people’s performance. They introduce a case study (Daniel Birnbaum at SodaStream) showing the role and importance of values in a leaders’ OS. They then describe practical techniques leaders can use to increase the degree to which their OS enables and supports values. Finally, they introduce a checklist leaders can use to test the extent people experience values in their OS.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Feldman, “The development and enforcement of group norms,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 47–53, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Cha and A. Edmondson, “When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 57–78, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gruys, S. Stewart, J. Goodstein, M. Bing and A. Wicks, “Values enactment in organizations: A multi-level examination,” Journal of Management, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 806–843, 2008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Markham, F. Yammarino, W. Murry and M. Palanski, “Leader–member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 469–480, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Goleman and R. Boyatzis, “Social intelligence and the biology of leadership,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 74–81, 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Gillespie and L. Mann, “Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 588–607, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Fisher and R. Gitelson, “A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 320–333, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Meglino, E. Ravlin and C. Adkins, “A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 424–432, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Fitzpatrick, “A literature review exploring values alignment as a proactive approach to conflict management,” International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 280–305, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z. Onağ and M. Tepeci, “Team effectiveness in sport teams: The effects of team cohesion, intra team communication and team norms on team member satisfaction and intent to remain,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 150, pp. 420–428, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Posner, J. Kouzes and W. Schmidt, “Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture,” Human Resource Management, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 293–309, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. O’Reilly and D. Caldwell, “The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach,” Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 193–206, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Patterson, A. Carron and T. Loughead, “The influence of team norms on the cohesion–self-reported performance relationship: A multi-level analysis,” Psychology of Sport and Exercise, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 479–493, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Kotter and J. Heskett, Corporate culture and performance, New York, NY, The Free Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Chatman and F. Flynn, “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 956–974, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Taggar and R. Ellis, “The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 105–120, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Kellermanns, S. Floyd, A. Pearson and B. Spencer, “The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 119–137, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    [19] D. Caldwell and C. O’Reilly III, “The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence,” Small Group Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 497–517, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Schwartz, “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries,” Advances in Experimental Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1–65, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Livi, A. Kruglanski, A. Pierro, L. Mannetti and D. Kenny, “Epistemic motivation and perpetuation of group culture: Effects of need for cognitive closure on trans-generational norm transmission,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 129, pp. 105–112, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Moser and C. Axtell, “The role of norms in virtual work: A review and agenda for future research,” Journal of Personnel Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Janicik and C. Bartel, “Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and performance,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 122, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nik Kinley
    • 1
  • Shlomo Ben-Hur
    • 2
  1. 1.WokingUK
  2. 2.LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations