A criticism levelled at companies, often by their own people, is that value statements, visions, and the like, sound like every other company on the block. That nothing really differentiates them. It’s a fair criticism on one hand, and maybe not so fair on the other. Often it’s just in how they’re written that makes them sound so similar, but when you sit and talk to those involved in drawing them up, and fuller picture emerges. One might then ask why they didn’t write them the way they meant them to sound in the first place? Perhaps it’s been a lack of creativity, or a lack of courage to write them the way they’d like them to sound. Certainly one of the faults has been that many companies have modelled them on books and consultants who have given a template that’s pretty bland to start with. Instead of taking the template and completely customising, they’ve simply infused their thoughts, ideals and dreams into the bland template. The result has been a set of values, visions, missions, etc that all look the same? (am I being unfair?)
This week I came across a set of ‘Philosophies and Values’ written the way they were meant to sound.The impact on me, an outsider, was immediate. High impact that left no doubt that this was a group of people who’d spent the time and energy to ensure that whoever read them would very quickly see that this group of people meant business.
The company is Investec, and you can see a list of their values and philosophies here (click here)
Words and phrases like, ‘demand cast-iron integrity’, ‘break china for the client’, show concern for people’, thrive on change’, etc, etc This, in my opinion, is how most companies, or groups of people would like what they stand for to sound. It’s how I hope the people I work with verbalise what it is we’re committed to (watch our space www.tomorrowtoday.biz). Certainly there is a correlation between Investec’s results and performance and their description of their commitment. Not just empty words put on a web site because you’re supposed to.
So what comes first? Performance and results, or putting your passion and commitment on the table and then going after it?
I am attracted to people who are passionate about what they do. As a young kid, learning to play the trumpet, I will never forget going to a live concert of one of the world’s great trumpeters, Phil Driscoll. He didn’t just play the trumpet – he became one with it – it was extension of his being. It was passion, and I was mesmerised by it. As a trumpeter, I had two options – I could go home, and pack up my trumpet and never play again (I had seen the master, and couldn’t compete), or I could let his passion inspire me. I did the latter. I went on to win competitions, and joined the Air Force orchestra when I was conscripted at the end of the 1980s, eventually becoming lead trumpeter of the National Servicemen’s Orchestra of the SA Air Force for a year.
So, when Barrie arrived at my house this afternoon, bubbling with enthusiasm, and bursting with excitement, I wanted to know the source. He literally pounced on my laptop, urging it to speed to Investec’s website to show me their value statements. I like them! They’re strong, unequivocal, and helpful in reality (you know you’re living them or not – they’re not nebulous).
Most importantly, though, Barrie was excited that here was a group of people who were actually LIVING these values.
Value statements cannot be “wish lists”. They cannot be what we WANT to live. Value statements are only helpful when they are reflections of reality, or near-reality (i.e. when they are attainable and are desired to be attained by the group they represent). They can be “stretch” targets, but they can’t be far from the truth. If Barrie is right, that Investec are living out the values they say they are, then I’m setting my alarm clock for 9am tomorrow, and buying shares straight away – a great long-term investment I would think.
So, how would you get these values? Well, values cannot be imposed on people. You have to impose people on the values. Make sure you have the right people on the bus, in the right seats, and get those people who don’t fit the values off the bus. This might sound brutal (and sometimes it has to be), but you’re not going to build a great company by making exceptions to the rules. You need to work in an iterative process to define the values your company wants to live by, and then get rid of those people furthest away from that set. Then, with the remaining crew (and some new blood), do the exercise again – sharpen the values, and get rid of those furthest away.
As I write this, I wonder if this process will ever stop. Jack Welch’s 20-70-10 principle springs to mind. And questions do, too. What happens if the founders find that they’re furthest away? What happens when values diverge in the woods – do you split the team, and some take the path less travelled?
But now I’m rambling.
“So what comes first? Performance and results, or putting your passion and commitment on the table and then going after it?” – great question. The eternal chicken and egg scenario.
Jim Collins touches on some of these issues in chapter 3 (First who… then what). As I understand it, he believes value statements (encompassing vision, mission, strategy, etc.) can only be real, useful and applicable when they are a product of passionate, constructive debate between those players who are still on the bus, and hopefully in the right seats.
I had orginally battled a bit with this chapter when first reading it, but seeing it more as a cyclical process as opposed to a once off blitzkrieg makes much better sense. I guess the key is making sure that the new blood is indeed being encouraged to show “entrepreneurial flair and the freedom to operate within the context of risk consciousness, sound judgement and the obligation to do things properly”. This license, coupled with the cyclical process we spoke about earlier, would hopefully marry the minds a bit – bridging that horrible void between founder values and entrepreneurial flair.
mikestop I really enjoyed the line about a cyclical process. Some great wisdom here. Often this process is a one off seldom to be repeated, when maybe it should be seen as a constantly moving process. This brings words like unstable ot the table, but is it not better to be moving with some instability that sitting still with tight parameters?
I’m sure it is, but then again, I’m enthused by change, progression and creativity. On the other hand though, I’m hesitant to assume that perpetual instability works for everyone. Yes, there are some companies (like Investec), that simply MUST re-invent, challenge and shift constantly, not only because their competition is doing so, but because their target market demands it. But if that’s true, there must be a converse argument that says some companies are just uncomfortable facing ongoing change.
I guess it comes down to environment. Context.
No environment stays the same for any length of time. However, some environments just seem to change a lot slower than others.
I’ve been to Investec, as a potential client, and they did not break china for me! In fact, they made me drink coffee out of it!
Don’t get me wrong, I think Investec is a great company, but the question should be asked … how do Investec massage these values and philosophies through the organisation? How does any company do this? Vision statements and value propositions like Investec’s are rare – theirs is exciting as it resonates so well with us. But does their vision statement accurately represent the culture throughout the company (or only that of some fairly innovative strategic thinkers who have a flair for words)?