Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Technical Report
February 2013
What do we know about Organizational
Values? – A Systematic Review
Stavros Stavru
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
5, James Bouchier Str., P.B. 4, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria
stavross@fmi.uni-sofia.bg
http://fmi.uni-sofia.bg/
This technical report is part of the RAPID (Research on the applicability of Agile Software
Development) project funded by the National Science Fund in Bulgaria under contract No. DMU 03-40
and Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”. More information could be found on http://www.rapidproject.eu/. All rights reserved.
1
ABSTRACT
This technical report consolidates the state of academic research on organizational
values through a systematic review of literature published over the past 51 years.
The search strategy identified 361 peer-reviewed journal articles, of which 111 were
thoroughly examined as highly relevant to the researched topic. The studies were
sorted into three themes: (1) studies which define and clarify the concept of
organizational values; (2) studies which discuss the structure of organizational values
and define or use formal classifications of organizational values (incl. categories and
taxonomies); and (3) studies which investigate the benefits and limitations of
organizational values in terms of their relation to different organizational constructs as
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, etc. Using the data obtained by the
review process a comprehensive conceptual consolidation of the existing literature
was proposed consisting of (1) a multidimensional definition of organizational values;
(2) a classification of organizational values based on the Stakeholder theory; and (3)
a map of relations between organizational values and various organizational
constructs that can be used to assess the benefits and limitations of organizational
values. Implications for research and practice are also presented.
Keywords: Organizational values, Systematic review, Research synthesis, Business
ethics
2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5
1.1. Summary of previous reviews .......................................................................... 7
1.2. Objectives of the review ................................................................................... 9
2. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Choosing the methodology ............................................................................. 12
2.2 Description of the methodology ....................................................................... 13
3. Results.................................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Descriptive statistics on the initial sample ....................................................... 19
3.2 Descriptive statistics on the final sample ......................................................... 22
4. Synthesis .............................................................................................................. 27
4.1 The concept of organizational values .............................................................. 27
4.2 Categories and taxonomies of organizational values ...................................... 35
4.3 The relation between organizational values and organizational constructs ..... 42
5. Limitations ............................................................................................................ 47
6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 50
7. References ........................................................................................................... 57
Appendix A. Grouping journal articles and appraisal criteria form ............................ 75
Appendix B. Data extraction form ............................................................................. 77
Appendix C. Taxonomy of organizational values ...................................................... 79
Table 1. Relevance scale ......................................................................................... 85
Table 2. Search results and inclusion / exclusion criteria ......................................... 86
Table 3. Number of articles in each theme ............................................................... 87
Table 4. Number of articles per ten years interval .................................................... 88
Table 5. Top journals by number of published articles ............................................. 89
Table 6. Number of articles per type of study ........................................................... 90
Table 7. Empirical articles per research topic ........................................................... 91
Table 8. Types of definitions ..................................................................................... 92
Table 9. Number of articles per type of definitions .................................................... 93
Table 10. Number of definitions per type of definition ............................................... 94
Table 11. Definitions of organizational values .......................................................... 95
Table 12. Organizational values and organizational culture ..................................... 97
3
Table 13. Number of organizational values categories per group ............................. 98
Table 14. Categories of organizational values by primary focus / concern ............... 99
Table 15. Categories of organizational values by how they are incorporated ......... 100
Table 16. Categories of organizational values by function ..................................... 101
Table 17. Taxonomies of organizational values ...................................................... 102
Table 18. Articles per field of study ......................................................................... 104
Table 19. Relation with other organizational constructs ......................................... 105
Table 20. Top ten constructs studied in regard to organizational values ................ 109
Table 21. Prerequisites for achieving the benefits of OV ........................................ 110
4
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2004, Booz Allen Hamilton and the Aspen Institute conducted a major global
industrial study on organizational values, including 365 organizations from 30
countries (Kelly, Kocourek, McGaw, & Samuelson, 2005). The study revealed an
increasing number of organizations all over the world which are defining their
organizational values (in terms of formal statements) and that senior executives are
routinely identifying values as a top issue on their organization’ agendas. Among the
reasons given for incorporating organizational values were the endorsement of
ethical behavior and integrity, the clarification of organizational functions (e.g.
commitment to customers, commitment to shareholders, etc.) and the role
organization play in society (e.g. social responsibility, corporate citizenship, etc.), the
determination and regulation of relations with internal and external constituencies,
the building of strong organizational reputation, the securing of organizational
strategy (e.g. through adequate recruitment, risk management, brand equity, product
quality / innovation, etc.) and many more. Although the industrial study revealed
some implications for practice, the conclusion was clear - organizational values are in
vogue in industry. They have become a critical component of modern organizations
with an increasing attention from business and society.
A brief review of the existing body of research reveals that organizational values are
popular in academia as well, where they are extensively used to explain various
organizational phenomena. They are considered to be specific type of values in
business, defined at the organizational, rather than at the individual, institutional,
societal or global level (Agle & Caldwell, 1999) and often described as the collective
beliefs of organizational members about what the organization should holds of
5
intrinsic worth (J. A. Chatman, 1989; J. C. Collins & Porras, 1996; J. Collins & Porras,
1994; C.A. Enz, 1986; Hultman, 2001; O’Reilly, 1989; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996;
O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Roe & Ester, 1999; Rokeach, 1979; E.H.
Schein, 1985; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008). Many studies have further shown their
substantial
influence
on
various
aspects
of
organizational
life,
including
organizational commitment (Abbott, White, & Charles, 2005; Finegan, 2000; Lankau
et al., 2007; Quenneville, Bentein, & Simard, 2010), job satisfaction (Huang, Cheng,
& Chou, 2005; Ostroff, Shin, & Kinicki, 2005; Rosete, 2006; Verplanken, 2004),
ethical attitudes and behavior (Akaah & Lund, 1994; Jin, Ron, & Bassett, 2007),
organizational citizenship behavior (Fischer & Smith, 2006; Huang et al., 2005) and
many more.
Although organizational values are a well-established concept in many social
science disciplines, there are many open issues. For example, there is still a dispute
among researchers whether organizational values are a valid construct (1) as
organizations are not moral agents as people are (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Ladd,
1970; McMahon, 1995; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Scott, 2002; Stackman, Pinder, &
Connor, 2000). However, the strongest theoretical support for the view that
organizations do in fact have values comes from the agreement that organizations
have purpose (to survive and flourish) and that purpose could be considered of value
for these organizations (Ladd, 1970; McMahon, 1995; Scott, 2002). Following this
line of thinking, everything that could help an organization accomplish its purpose
could be further considered an organizational value (Scott, 2002). Another open
issue is the existing confusion on what exactly constitutes organizational values (2),
although many definitions of organizational values could be found in the literature
and the concept is fairly well defined (Agle & Caldwell, 1999). Among the reasons for
6
that is the inconsistent use of terminology, where organizational values are often
used interchangeably with other closely related concepts as espoused or stated
values, core values, value statements, etc. or more general concepts as
organizational culture, business ethics, etc. (Connor & Becker, 1994; Fitzpatrick,
2007; Jaakson, 2010). Other reasons are the ambiguity created due to level
(analysis) issues (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Connor & Becker, 1994; Meglino & Ravlin,
1998) and the variety of existing measurement techniques and instruments, where
making choice is not a clear-cut (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Connor & Becker, 1994;
McMahon, 1995; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Other open issues include: (3) evaluating
the influence of organizational values on various aspects of organizational life and
determining their benefits and limitations; (4) operationalizing organizational values
by finding a measurable, quantifiable, and valid index for its variables (e.g. prevailing
values within the organization, value congruence, etc.); (5) institutionalizing
organizational values in terms of eliciting, defining, introducing, monitoring and
maintaining organizational values; and many others (Agle & Caldwell, 1999).
Given the increasing interest in organizational values from both academia and
industry, and the lack of comprehensive reviews that systematically summarize the
existing body of knowledge, this study undertakes an overview of the of literature in
order to consolidate what is currently known in regard to organizational values.
1.1. Summary of previous reviews
Although there are many review studies on values in business (Agle & Caldwell,
1999; Bano & Ikram, 2010; Connor & Becker, 1975, 1994; Hambrick & Brandon,
1988; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Nigul, Kontogiannis, & Brealey, 2009; B. Z. Posner &
Munson, 1979; Stackman et al., 2000; Yi & Blake, 2010), only few are specifically
concerned with values at the organizational level (or organizational values). Such
7
review was conducted by Agle and Caldwell (Agle & Caldwell, 1999). Even though
the focus of the review was on business values in general, it provided some useful
insights for the state of research on organizational values up until 1999. By using a
database of more than 200 articles (derived from top journals, published during 19891999, and their respective bibliographies), Agle and Caldwell identified 42 studies
(incl. journal articles, book chapters and
conference papers) relevant to
organizational values. Based on these studies they presented the current state of
research on organizational values, including its related fields (e.g. organizational
culture), topics of interest (e.g. conceptualization of organizational values, how do
they emerge and change over time), values operationalization (incl. different
measurement techniques and instruments), etc. Another review specifically focused
on organizational values was conducted by Ferriera et al. (Ferreira, Fernandes, &
Corrêa e Silva, 2009). The objective of the review was to analyze the Brazilian body
of literature on organizational values, based on articles published in leading journals
in the areas of Administration and Psychology between 2000 and 2008, as well as to
identify existing research gaps and to discuss implications for research and practice.
There are some other reviews on organizational values, but their scope is too
narrowed to be used for a broader description of the state of research on
organizational values. Example of such reviews include: (1) Jaakson (Jaakson,
2010), who reviewed the literature in order to better understand organizational values
in the context of management by values; (2) Fitzpatrick (Fitzpatrick, 2007), who
reviewed existing literature to clarify the concept of organizational values and its
relation to conflict management; (3) Kabanoff and Daly (Kabanoff & Daly, 2002), who
reviewed numerous studies to identify approaches for measuring and comparing
values espoused by organizations; (4) Russell (Russell, 2001), who examined the
8
role of values in leadership; and etc.
This review is different from previous reviews in two aspects - its scope and
methodology. The scope of the review covers only organizational values and thus
includes studies mostly concerned with values at the organizational level (Agle &
Caldwell, 1999). However, there are no restrictions in regard to the field of study (e.g.
management, business, applied psychology, etc.), problem domain (e.g. conflicts
management, leadership, etc.), context (e.g. private or business organizations, etc.),
topics of interest (e.g. value congruence, value institutionalization, etc.), or any other
restriction, and thus ensures the comprehensiveness of review. As for the
methodology used for reviewing the existing body of literature, systematic review is
employed. Systematic reviews incorporate an objective, transparent and reproducible
procedure for the identification, appraisal, selection and synthesis of studies and
have been extensively recommended in the recent years for systematically
evaluating the contribution of a given body of literature (Ginsberg & Venkatraman,
1985; Higgins & Green, 2011; Khan, Riet, Glanville, Sowden, & Kleijnen, 2001;
Moher, Tetzlaff, Tricco, Sampson, & Altman, 2007; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart,
2003). To the extent of our knowledge there are no reviews on organizational values
that are using systematic review as a review methodology, although systematic
reviews have been exploited in other fields, closely related to values research
(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).
1.2. Objectives of the review
The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview and a
conceptual, rather than empirical, consolidation of the existing literature. It includes
the following three research questions:
1. What is currently known about the concept of organizational values? –
9
Researchers on organizational values agreed on the need to clarify the concept of
organizational values due to the extensive and inconsistent use of terminology and
instrumentation, where organizational values were often used interchangeably with
other closely related concepts as espoused values, core values and value statements
(Jaakson, 2010) or more general concepts as culture, ethics, morals, principles,
judgments, virtues, attitudes, needs, beliefs and emotions (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Thus,
developing a strong and coherent understanding of organizational values would limit
the amount of confusion and misinterpretation of organizational values in both
research and practice. Also, a thorough specification of the concept of values at the
organizational level would support the resolution of the more general values literature
confusion, described by Agle and Caldwell (Agle & Caldwell, 1999).
2. What is currently known about the structure of organizational values? – The
importance of classifying (or structuring) values (whether in categories, taxonomies,
typologies, etc.) has been thoroughly discussed in the values literature (Agle &
Caldwell, 1999; Rescher, 1969; E.H. Schein, 2004). Among the strongest arguments
for structuring organizational values are enriched understanding by viewing values
from different perspectives and a more coherent and well-informed discussion on the
topic (Rescher, 1969). They also help to make sense and provide some order out of
the observed phenomena (E.H. Schein, 2004). Moreover, classifications of values
could be useful when clarifying the content of values (e.g. the prevailing values in a
particular organization) or comparisons are made (e.g. comparing the prevailing
values among organizations). Thus, identifying, analyzing and synthesizing the
existing categories and taxonomies of organizational values could be beneficial for
both industry and academia (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; E.H. Schein, 2004)
3. What is currently known about the relation between organizational values and
10
different organizational constructs? – Examining the relation between organizational
values and different organizational constructs (as organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, etc.) is crucial as it allows practitioners and researches to better
understand the benefits and limitations of organizational values, and thus make more
accurate, timely and informed decisions.
This technical report is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the research
methodology as followed by the review; Section 3 presents the results of the review
process and conducts some descriptive analysis; Section 4 synthesizes the data,
obtained by the review, following the review objectives; Section 5 discusses the
limitations of the review; and Section 6 concludes the review.
11
2. Methodology
This section describes in full details the methodology used to review the existing
body of literature.
2.1. Choosing the methodology
Systematic review provides an analytical review scheme, which is necessary for
systematically evaluating the contribution of a given body of literature (Ginsberg &
Venkatraman, 1985). It employees an objective, transparent and reproducible
procedure for the identification, appraisal, selection and synthesis of studies highly
relevant to specific research questions and thus improves the quality of the review
process and its outcome (Tranfield et al., 2003). Although systematic reviews are
regarded as the strongest form of research evidence (Moher et al., 2007), they have
some challenges, including difficulty of data synthesis from various disciplines,
insufficient representation of books and gray literature, and large amounts of material
to review (Pittaway, Robertson, Munir, Denyer, & Neely, 2004; Savoie, Helmer,
Green, & Kazanjian, 2003). Given the objective of the review and the fact that there
were no systematic reviews of organizational values previously published, systematic
review was employed as the most appropriate review methodology.
Following the specifics of the systematic review approach (Tranfield et al., 2003) the
data in the review was collected using a predefined, explicit selection algorithm rather
than subjective collection methodologies (as employing panel of experts or using
knowledge of the existing literature). Data analysis was limited to descriptive, rather
than statistical (meta-analysis) methods, following the review objective of providing a
comprehensive overview and a conceptual, rather than an empirical, consolidation of
literature. Finally data synthesis was conducted using meta-ethnographic methods.
12
Next paragraphs describe in full details the methodology used.
2.2 Description of the methodology
The review followed an established method of systematic review (Higgins & Green,
2011; Khan et al., 2001), including the following distinct stages: (1) the development
of review protocol; (2) the identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) a
search for relevant studies; (4) critical appraisal; (5) data extraction; and (6)
synthesis. In the rest of this section, we describe the details of these stages and the
methods used.
2.2.1 Protocol development
Following the guidelines, procedures, and policies of the Campbell Collaboration
(Higgins & Green, 2011) and the University of York’s Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (Khan et
al., 2001) a protocol for the systematic review was developed. The protocol specified
the research questions, search strategy, inclusion, exclusion and assessment criteria,
data extraction, and methods of synthesis.
2.2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Articles were eligible for inclusion in the review based on their relevance to
organizational values and the research questions as stated in the previous section.
The relevance was evaluated by reviewing the abstracts of the articles and grading
articles on a five-point scale from highly relevant to irrelevant. The scale is shown in
Table 1. Only highly relevant articles were included in the review.
Inclusion was not restricted to any specific type of study. Thus the review included
other reviews, theoretical (or conceptual) and empirical studies. No restrictions were
13
made in regard to the publication year of the articles also. The review covered all the
years available in the included electronic databases at the time of the review (1 July,
2012).
The following are the exclusion criteria used: (1) the article does not have abstract
or the abstract is not available from the included electronic databases; (2) the access
to the full text of the article is restricted; and (3) the full text of the article is not
available in English.
2.2.3 Data sources and search strategy
The search strategy was limited to peer-reviewed journals because these could be
considered validated knowledge and are likely to have the highest impact in the field
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005). The five electronic databases
searched were the Electronic Management Research Library Database (Emerald),
Journal Storage (JSTOR), Elsevier's ScienceDirect, SAGE Journals and Wiley Online
Library. Including all of these databases ensured the coverage of more than 4000
peer-reviewed journals from multiple and diverse disciplines, including Organizational
studies, Social science, Business, Economics, Marketing, Applied psychology, Public
administration and many more. The ISI Web of Knowledge's Social Sciences Citation
Index (SSCI) database was also searched to verify if the initial database selection
coverage was sufficient enough. Applying the keywords and search terms on the
SSCI database resulted in total of 185 articles. More than 90% of these articles were
covered by the five electronic databases, where the initial pool of articles was 361
(almost double in size).
The titles, abstracts and keywords of the journal articles in the included electronic
databases were searched using the following search phrase “organizational values”
in both American and British spelling. Only for the Wiley Online Library a slightly
14
different search strategy was employed as no support was provided for phrase
search. The titles of the journal articles in Wiley Online Library were searched for
“organizational” AND “values” keywords with an enabled automatic stemming.
Although different search terms were used, there were no significant differences in
the number of articles found between the included electronic databases (Figure I).
FIGURE I
Articles per electronic database
Wiley
25%
Emerald
24%
JSTOR
17%
ScienceDirect
19%
SAGE
15%
The search strategy included only organizational values as a searched term,
excluding other closely related concepts as personal (individual, human) values, work
values, espoused (stated) values, core values, value statements, corporate values,
firm values, business values, person-organization fit, value congruence and many
more. Although this could minimize the likelihood of capturing all relevant data and
therefore maximize the effects of reporting biases, we narrowed the focus of the
search terms in order to minimize the capture of extraneous literature that may result
in exceeding our limited time and funding. This limitation was partially addressed by
including a variety of electronic databases, relevant to the topic of interest, with no
15
restriction in regard to the year of publication and type of study.
Applying the search strategy resulted in an initial pool of 361 articles. 24 articles
(7%) were excluded as no abstracts were available from the electronic databases.
From the remaining 337 articles, 119 were included as highly relevant to the research
questions of the review. Furthermore, 8 articles were excluded as the access to the
full text of the article was restricted or the language of the article was not English.
Thus the final pool included total of 111 articles. Table 2 summarizes the results of
the search strategy and the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2.2.4 Critical appraisal and articles grouping
All articles from the initial pool were appraised for their relevance to the research
questions. This resulted in 337 abstracts reviewed by the author (excluding the ones
with no abstract). The distribution of articles by relevance is shown in Figure II.
As seen from Figure I, 35% of all articles (or 119 articles) were found to be highly
relevant and 111 full texts (excluding articles with no full text available) were further
examined. Articles were also grouped into three themes based on the research
questions they address. As one article could address more than one research
question, overlapping of articles over themes was possible. The first theme included
56 articles explicitly defining the meaning of organizational values. The second theme
included 29 articles defining or using formal categories and taxonomies of
organizational values. The last theme included 85 articles examining the relation
between organizational values and different organizational constructs.
FIGURE II
Articles per relevance
16
Irrelevant 17%
Highly
35%
Slightly12%
Moderately
13%
Significantly 22%
The form used for the assessment and grouping of articles could be found in
Appendix A. Only italic criteria were used as a basis for including an article to a
particular theme, while the other criteria provided additional confidence that a
particular article would be of valuable contribution. The distribution of articles by
themes is summarized in Table 3.
In terms of quality of the articles we relied mostly on the reputation of the included
electronic databases and the limitation of the search strategy to peer-reviewed
journals only. However we used the ISI Journal Citation Reports to additionally
assess the impact factor of the journals with the largest number of hits when applying
our search strategy. The mean impact factor for the top five journals (containing 12%
of all articles found) was 2.55, which was considered sufficient quality for the
purposes of the review.
2.2.5 Data extraction
All articles found (n = 361) were entered into and sorted with the aid of EndNote.
For each theme, the articles were further imported to Excel, following a predefined
extraction form (see Appendix B). This form enabled us to thoroughly describe each
17
article and specify how it relates to each of the research questions.
2.2.6 Data synthesis
Following the objective of the review in providing a comprehensive overview and a
conceptual, rather than empirical, consolidation of the literature, the data extracted
was mostly qualitative in its nature. Thus qualitative analysis techniques had to be
incorporated. Among all available qualitative analysis techniques, meta-ethnographic
methods were selected (Noblit & Hare, 1988). The seven-step process proposed by
Noblit and Hare (Noblit & Hare, 1988) was followed, including getting started,
deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, reading the studies, determining how
the studies are related, translating the studies into one another, synthesizing
translations and expressing the synthesis.
18
3. RESULTS
This section provides descriptive analysis of the initial and the final pool of reviewed
articles. The analysis covers the year of publication and the publication source for the
initial sample, and various research characteristics (incl. research type, topic, method
and design) for the final sample. Next paragraphs present in full details the obtained
results.
3.1 Descriptive statistics on the initial sample
The initial pool of 361 articles was published from 1961 to 2012, covering a time
span of 51 years. Table 4 provides some descriptive statistics for the number of
articles published per ten years intervals.
198 articles were published during 2002-2011, which is 55% of all publications. This
is a significant proportion and indicates that the research on values (incl.
organizational values) has dramatically growth (doubled) over the last decade.
Plotting the number of published articles per ten years intervals further reveals a
steady upward trend in values research (see Figure III).
Displaying the number of publications per year provides some additional insights
(Figure IV). There were interesting deviations in the trend, including two peaks in
1993 and 2008, and two dips in 1998 and 2011. Also the number of publications is
decreasing since 2008, which is questioning whether the trend would remain in the
future. As for the first six months of 2012, there were 29 articles already published.
This is contradicting with the observed decrease in the previous years (2008-2011)
and further supports the upward trend of values research.
19
FIGURE III
Articles per ten years intervals (1962-2011)
250
200
150
100
50
0
1962-1971
1972-1981
1982-1991
1992-2001
2002-2011
Evaluating the identified trend and predicting future research interest in
organizational values requires formal analysis (e.g. through Poisson regression)
which is out of the scope of the review and is left for future work.
FIGURE IV
Articles per year (1961-2012)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2012
2009
2006
2003
2000
1997
1994
1991
1988
1985
1982
1979
1976
1973
1970
1967
1964
1961
0
The dramatic increase in the number of articles published in 2002-2011 could be
explained through various factors. Such factors could be: (1) the emergence of
20
international business ethics in the late 1990s, where issues as cultural relativity and
ethical values in international business context were escalated; (2) the numerous
corporate scandals in the earlier 2000s (including the cases of Enron, WorldCom and
Tyco) leading to the wide adoption of ethical principles and values in organizations;
(3) the increased public awareness and sensitivity to the side effects organizations
have on environment, society and economy over the last decade, questioning
whether economic values (as profit maximization, cost reduction, etc.) could be the
ultimate values of the organizations; and (4) the increased number of empirical
studies supporting the relation between organizational values and work outcomes,
increasing the confidence that organizational values could be beneficial for industry.
The decrease in the number of publications between 2009 and 2011 could be
explained with the global financial crisis (2008-2012), which might have shifted the
focus of industry and academia away from non-economic concerns.
The 361 articles were published in total of 210 journals. Table 5 lists the journals
with the highest number of published articles in regard to organizational values.
As seen from Table 5, the Journal of Business Ethics is the leader with 13
publications (4%), followed by the Journal of Organizational Behavior with 11 (3%)
and Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology with 9 (2%) publications.
As the amount of 210 journals was too large for a convenient analysis, the set was
limited to the journals in Table 5. Although they covered only 26% of all publications,
they still provided some valuable insights in regard to the overall journal quality and
related research fields. Using the ISI Journal Citation Report, a weighted mean
impact factor of the journals was calculated. It was 2.56, indicating comparatively
high quality of the journals. In regard to the research fields of the journals, we used
the SSCI's Subject Category. Five research fields were identified to be relevant to
21
organizational values, including Business, Psychology Applied, Management, Social
Sciences and Psychology Social. Figure V shows the distribution of the 95
publications (published in the journals from Table 5) in regard to their research field.
FIGURE V
Articles per research field
80
70
70
60
50
40
38
32
30
20
14
10
4
0
Business
P. Applied
Mangment
Social S.
P. Social
Figure IV reveals that Management is the field, mostly concerned with
organizational values, followed by Business, Applied Psychology, Social Sciences
and Social Psychology.
3.2 Descriptive statistics on the final sample
In regard to the type of study, the descriptive analysis was limited to the 111
articles, included in the review. As seen from Table 6, 73% of the publications were
empirical studies, 23% were theoretical (or conceptual) studies and only 4 % were
review articles.
The limited number of reviews on organizational values (only 4) could be
problematic for practitioners who would like to stay up to date with the state of
research, as well as for researchers who want to identify topic areas that were
researched or where research is lacking. Therefore more reviews, as the one
22
presented, are needed in order to fulfill this gap. In terms of empirical studies, the 81
empirical
studies
already published,
should
provide
comparatively enough
observations and empirical data for the initial evaluation of the benefits and
limitations of organizational values and their implication to industry and academia. On
the other hand, the 26 theoretical studies should provide enough theoretical bases
and theoretical frameworks to guide practitioners in their efforts to incorporate
organizational values within their organizations, and researchers in their efforts to
conduct research on organizational values.
In terms of the research method, used by the 81 empirical studies, case studies (41
articles) and surveys (39 articles) were the most popular methods, while experiments
were extremely rare with just one study (Figure VI). From all the case studies, 55%
(23 articles) were single-case studies, while 45% (31 articles) were multi-case
studies.
FIGURE V
Articles per research field
Experiment
1%
Survey
47%
Case Studies
52%
In regard to the attributes of organizational values studied (or research topic), the
23
111 reviewed articles were split into three groups, depending on whether they were
concerned with: (1) value institutionalization – the process of eliciting, defining,
introducing and maintaining (incl. changing) organizational values within the
organization; (2) value alignment – the alignment of values at different levels (e.g.
person-organization fit or value congruence, alignment between management and
operational teams, etc.); or (3) value content – the concrete set of values prevailing
within the organization (e.g. core values, value orientations, etc.). As one article could
cover more than one research topic, overlapping of articles over groups was
possible. The distribution of articles per research topic is shown in Table 7.
As seen from Table 7, the most studied attribute of organizational values is their
content, followed by the alignment of values and value institutionalization. The
statistics also indicate that there is a considerable amount of research for each of the
research topics. In terms of value institutionalization, 13 (68%) of the articles were
presenting empirical studies, while 8 (32%) were theoretical studies. 5 of these
articles were proposing formal methods and processes for value institutionalization (2
of which were applied in real industrial settings), while the rest of the articles were
either providing guidelines and best practices (mostly based on lessons learned) or
were examining the effect of value institutionalization (e.g. on organizational
commitment, turnover intentions, etc.). In regard to value alignment, 22 (79%) were
empirical studies, 5 were theoretical studies and 1 was a review. 7 of these articles
were concerned with practices for achieving value alignment resulting in total of 5
formal methods and processes for value alignment proposed. In terms of the levels of
value alignment and their effect on the organization, 2 articles were examining the
alignment between the values of management and operational teams, 2 articles were
studying the alignment between the values embedded in organizational practices (or
24
processes) and the values of the organization; and 18 articles were examining the
alignment between actual and desired organizational values (or value congruence,
person-organization fit, etc.). Value alignment was studied through surveying key
(e.g. top managers, customers, etc.) or all organizational members and was mostly
measured through calculating score differences or correlations between different
value rank orderings. Only 3 of the articles were using polynomial regression
analysis, which is surprising, as score differences have been widely criticized for
conceptual ambiguity and discarded information (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960;
Edwards, 1993; J. Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002). Total of 76 (68%) articles studied
the prevailing values in the organization. 61 (80%) of these articles were empirical
studies, 12 were theoretical studies and 3 were reviews. 40 of all articles extracted
the prevailing values by surveying organizational members for their own values or
their perceptions of the organization's values. Content analysis (manual or computeraided), by using annual reports, recruitment brochures, code of conducts, etc. or by
interviewing organizational members, was used by only 11 of the articles. This was
also surprising, taking into account the numerous advantages of content analysis,
including that it describes organizational values unobtrusively and systematically;
combines qualitative and quantitative elements by quantifying data that are normally
considered qualitative in nature and measures organizational values over extended
periods and for relatively large organizational sample (Kabanoff & Holt, 1996;
Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Rokeach, 1979). In
terms of surveying organizational members, rating was extensively used, ranking was
applied by only 4 of the studies, and no other procedure was used (e.g. paired
comparison). This could be explained by the methodological and theoretical
advantages of normative scales (rating), although ipsative scales (ranking) has been
25
also commonly recommended (Allport et al., 1960; Ladd, 1970; McMahon, 1995;
Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; J. Post et al., 2002; Rokeach, 1973, 1979; Sashkin &
Fulmer, 1985; Stackman et al., 2000; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008; Vandenberghe &
Peiro, 1999; Venters et al., 2011). The provided statistics support previous findings
made by Agle and Caldwell (Agle & Caldwell, 1999) that no consensus exists in the
literature in regard to how values should be measured, although it reveals some
preferences towards using surveys and ratings.
26
4. SYNTHESIS
This section synthesizes the data obtained by the review process. Following the
review objective, it starts with a discussion on the concept of organizational values
and its distinction from other related concepts. By assessing the similarities and
differences of 47 definitions of organizational values, extracted by the review
process, a consolidated multidimensional definition of organizational values is
proposed. The definition reflects various aspects of organizational values, including
the concept of values in organizational values, the collective nature of organizational
values, how organizational values emerge and what is their function in the
organization. Also, a clear distinction between organizational values and other
related concepts is drawn in order to further strengthen the concept of organization
values. Next, different classifications (incl. categories and taxonomies) of
organizational values are presented. From these classifications (covering approx. 40
taxonomies of organizational values, consisting of more than 500 value items) and by
applying the Stakeholder theory (Zheng, He, & O'Brien, 2010), a consolidated
taxonomy of organizational values is proposed, consisting of 2 hierarchical levels
(stakeholders and operational values) and total of 39 value items sorted into 7
sublevels.
Finally the
relation between organizational values
and
various
organizational constructs is examined. The 76 organizational constructs, extracted by
the review process, are consolidated into 31 more general constructs, which are then
sorted into 8 groups, depending on their relevant field of study. Further, the benefits
and limitations of organizational values are discussed.
4.1 The concept of organizational values
From the 111 articles included in the review, 56 articles (or 50%) explicitly defined
27
the concept of values. As most of these articles referred to more than one definition
of values, the review process extracted total of 115 definitions. These definitions
were further classified into four types, depending on two criteria (Agle & Caldwell,
1999; Connor & Becker, 1994; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998): (1) whether they define
values at the individual or collective level; and (2) whether they define values in
general or from organizational perspective. Table 8 shows the four types of
definitions, based on these criteria, including definitions of personal (individual)
values, work values, group values and organizational values.
Table 9 further shows the number of articles per type of definitions. As there was no
definition of group values in any of the reviewed articles, this type of definitions was
omitted.
As seen from Table 9, only 26% of the articles explicitly defined the concept of
organizational values, following the criteria in Table 8. This could be problematic as it
might create confusion and cause misinterpretation of the research work and its
findings. This is especially relevant when the study is claiming to examine the
concept of organizational values while only definitions of personal values (23%) or
work values (3%) are provided. Further, only 9% of the articles defined both personal
and organizational values, 2% defined personal and work values, and no article
defined all of the four concepts. However, in order to make a clear distinction
between personal, work, group and organizational values we used the two criteria,
shown in Table 8 – individual vs. collective level and general vs. organizational
perspective. Thus a definition of organizational values should specify the collective
nature of the concept (e.g. representing the values shared by a group or all of the
members of the organization) and should present them from an organizational
perspective (e.g. as abstract organizational constructs) in order to be included in the
28
OV group of definitions. Table 10 further presents some additional descriptive
statistics for the 115 definitions in regard to their type.
In terms of the most citied definitions, Rokeach’s definition from 1973 (Rokeach,
1973) is the leader with a total of 16 citations. In his influential work (Rokeach, 1973)
the concept of value is defined as “...enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct
or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or
converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. Similar definitions could be
found in other Rokeach’s works (Rokeach, 1968, 1979). Rokeach defined also the
concept of organizational values as “socially shared cognitive representations of
institutional goals and demands” (Rokeach, 1979). In total Rokeach (Rokeach, 1968,
1973, 1979) was citied 22 times. Only 4 of these citations were used to define
organizational values in accordance to the criteria in Table 8. The second most citied
definition of value is given by Schwartz (S. H. Schwartz, 1992). According to his
definition (S. H. Schwartz, 1992; Shalom H. Schwartz, 1994) values are “concepts or
beliefs that pertain to desirable end states or behaviors that transcend specific
situations, and guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events”. Schwartz (S. H.
Schwartz, 1992; Shalom H. Schwartz, 1994) was citied 11 times but none of these
citations was referring to organizational values. The third most cited definition was
from Enz (C.A. Enz, 1986). She defines values as “the beliefs a group of persons
express by preference in the context of identifying desirable courses of action and
goals” (C.A. Enz, 1986; Cathy A. Enz, 1988). As the review was concerned with the
concept of organizational values or values at the organizational level, the analysis
was limited to these definitions of organizational values, which fulfill the criteria in
Table 8. Table 11 summarizes these definitions, including also their references and
number of citations.
29
There were some additional definitions to the ones shown in Table 11, including
definitions of organizational values as managerial instrument (Mowles, 2008; O’Reilly
& Chatman, 1996), tool for recruitment and publicity (Braddy, Meade, & Kroustalis,
2006) and tool for social control (O’Reilly, 1989), as well as 17 definitions with no
reference. In total 47 definitions of organizational values were extracted. These
definitions were further analyzed in order to explore their similarities and differences.
Almost all of the definitions comprised of two components – the concept of values
(e.g. beliefs, standards, etc.) and the function of values (e.g. identifying desirable
courses of action and goals, have certain weight in the choice of action, etc.). In
terms of the concept of values, the extracted definitions used beliefs (13 definitions),
standards (6 definitions), guidelines, ideals, tenets and tools (3 definitions each),
preferences, goals, rules and qualities (2 definitions each), thoughts, contracts and
ideas (1 definition). Although most of the definitions were quite similar, there were
some differences, which raised some important questions. The first question was
whether organizational values are concepts or constructs. Both terms refer to high
level abstractions, but concepts are factual abstractions, while constructs are
hypothetical ones (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). For example, if organizational values
are concept, then both customer revenue and customer satisfaction could be
considered organizational values. But if it is a construct, only organizational
satisfaction would be an organizational value as it has no single observable referent
which could be directly observed or there exist multiple referents, but none allinclusive (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). The second question was how do they emerge?
Organizational values could result from the collective beliefs of what is good or bad
for the members of the organization and the organization as a whole. Then the
definition of organizational values could sound like “beliefs (or tenets) that constitute
30
a collective understanding of what the organization stands for, takes pride in and
holds of intrinsic worth”, a definition adapted from Schein (E.H. Schein, 1985). But
they could emerge from the collective vision for the organization as well. Then the
definition could be “abstract goals (or qualities, criteria, rules, ideals, standards and
demands) that describe desired actions and states, organizational members are
striving to attain”. Further, organizational values could emerge from collective
experience, including lessons learned, best practices, long-lasting truths, etc. As
such, organizational values could be defined as “principles (or guidelines,
philosophies) that guide organizational members in their decisions and justifies their
behavior within the organization”. Still another question was whether organizational
values could represent the collective values of a particular group (e.g. top
management) or they should represent the collective values of all organizational
members. In terms of the functions of organizational values, all definitions agree on
two common functions: to guide the decision-making process and to evaluate
individual and organizational actions and states. As a summary, a definition of
organizational values was proposed, which consolidates the 47 definitions, extracted
by the review process:
Organizational values are long-lasting constructs, which have emerged from
the collective beliefs, experience and vision of a group or all members of the
organization about what the organization should holds of intrinsic worth, and
which have (explicitly or implicitly) certain weight in the process of decision
making and the evaluation of individuals and organizations in terms of their
modes, actions and end states.
The difficulty in establishing a consistent theoretical and operational definition of
values over the years (Becker, Widjaja, & Buxmann, 2011; Choudhury, Sarkar, &
31
Debnath, 2011; Connor & Becker, 1975, 1994; Dose, 1997; Edwards, 1993; Finegan,
2000; Issarny et al., 2011; Kluckhohn, 1951; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Murphy &
Davey, 2002; Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Schmidt & Posner, 1986; Scott, 2002;
van der Wal et al., 2008; van Deth & Scarbrough, 1996; Venters et al., 2011; R. M.
Williams, Jr., 1979), the ambiguity created due to level (analysis) issues (Agle &
Caldwell, 1999; Connor & Becker, 1994; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998), the variety of
existing measurement techniques and instruments, where making choice is not clearcut (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Connor & Becker, 1994; McMahon, 1995; Meglino &
Ravlin, 1998) and the use of organizational values interchangeably with other similar
concepts (Connor & Becker, 1994; Fitzpatrick, 2007; Jaakson, 2010) all constitute the
so called “values literature confusion” (Agle & Caldwell, 1999). To lessen the existing
confusion, the reviewed articles were further analyzed in order to strengthen the
meaning of organizational values by drawing a clear distinction between
organizational values and other related concepts.
The difference between personal (individual) values, work values, group values and
organizational values was already discussed and two criteria were identified which
could be used to quickly distinguish between them (Table 8). However, there are
much more comprehensive models which examine values at different levels of
analysis and contexts. For example, Agle and Caldwell (Agle & Caldwell, 1999) have
proposed a framework, where values were examined using five different levels of
analysis - individual, organizational, institutional, societal and global values. Applying
their framework, personal and work values (from Table 8) refer to individual values,
organizational values (from Table 8) correspondent to organizational values, and
group values (from Table 8) have no analogy, as they were intentionally excluded
from the framework (Agle & Caldwell, 1999). Perrow (Perrow, 1986) has proposed
32
even more comprehensive framework, consisting of individual, group, department,
division, organization, interorganization, organizational set, networks, industry,
region, national, and world values. Other frameworks include: (1) Schmidt and
Posner’s framework, distinguishing between individual work, managerial, businessorganizational and societal values (Schmidt & Posner, 1983); Beyer’s framework
consisting of personal, role-sets, organizational systems, societal systems, and
cultural systems (Beyer, 1981); and others (Rescher, 1969; Rokeach, 1973).
Among the concepts, extensively associated with organizational values, is the
concept of organizational culture. From all of the 111 reviewed articles, 23 (or 21%)
discussed the relation between values and culture. The most citied authors were
Schein (E.H. Schein, 1985, 2004; Edgar H. Schein, 1992) with 8 citations, O’Reilly et
al. (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1991) with 4 citations, Deal and
Kennedy (Deal & Kennedy, 1982) and Hofstede (Hofstede, 1980, 1984, 2001) with 3
citations. Surprisingly there were quite different interpretations of the relation between
organizational values and organizational culture. Most of the authors thought of
organizational culture as the values shared by organizational members and define
culture in terms of the nature and intensity of these values. Other authors consider
values to be just one of the components of organizational culture, together with other
significant components as beliefs, basic assumptions, etc. Table 12 summarizes the
relations between organizational values and organizational culture as identified by
the review process.
From the reviewed articles, 5 articles discussed the relation between organizational
values and other similar concepts (Fitzpatrick, 2007; Jaakson, 2010; Larson &
Catton, 1961; Padaki, 2000; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008). The terms espoused
values, stated values, core values, shared values, basic values, actual values, values
33
in-use and value statements were thoroughly analyzed by Jaakson (Jaakson, 2010).
She introduced two criteria in order to distinguish these terms: explicit (conscious) vs.
implicit (unconscious) and low acceptance vs. high acceptance from organizational
members. Espoused (or stated) values are these organizational values which are
explicitly stated (as part of official organizational, corporate websites, employee
conduct manuals, internal business codes, etc.) and organizational members are at
least aware of them. When these values are highly accepted by organizational
member they become core values. When organizational values are highly accepted
but unconscious are considered as shared (or basic) values. Actual values (or values
in-use) are the values manifested in the actual decisions and behavior of
organizational members (and might differ or even contradict with the espoused, core
or shared values). Finally, values statement is defined by Jaakson as a specific set of
publicly stated organizational beliefs or concepts (Buchko, 2007). The distinction
between organizational values and broader concepts as norms, morality and ethics is
done by Van der Wal and his colleagues (van der Wal & Huberts, 2008). They define
norms as “regulations prescribing what the proper conduct in certain situations is”,
morality as “values and norms taken together”, and ethics as the “systematic
reflection on morality”. Morality, ethics and other concepts are discussed in their
relation to values by Fitzpatrick (Fitzpatrick, 2007), based on a previous work of
Henderson and Thompson (Henderson & Thompson, 2004). He states that values
are not: ethics which are agreed codes of behavior; morals which represents our
viewpoint of what is good or bad; principles which are time-tested truths; judgments
which represent beliefs about moral perspectives; virtues which are traits or
characteristics that are considered favorable; attitudes which are expressions of
beliefs through decisions and behavior; needs which are resources, actions or
34
behaviors that are required; beliefs which give reasons for existence; and emotions
which represent feelings (Fitzpatrick, 2007; Henderson & Thompson, 2004). The
relation between organizational values and organizational vision and mission are
examined by Padaki (Padaki, 2000). He defines the vision of the organization as the
sum of organizational aim and organizational values, while the mission is the sum of
organizational goals and organizational values. The distinction between values and
goals is discussed by Larson and Catton (Larson & Catton, 1961) who stated that
goals are specific ends sought, while values are conceptions of the desirable inferred
from expressed preferences among these ends.
4.2 Categories and taxonomies of organizational values
From the 111 reviewed articles, 14 (or 13%) articles defined or used formal
categories (or classifications) of organizational values. As some of these articles
referred to more than one category of organizational values, the review process
extracted total of 20 categories. These categories were further split into four groups,
depending on the criteria they used to classify organizational values. Table 13
summarizes these groups and provides some basic descriptive statistics.
The ten categories, used to classify organizational values by their primary focus (or
concern), were proposed by Rokeach (Rokeach, 1973), Wiener (Wiener, 1988),
Zahra (Zahra, 1991), Kabanoff and Holt (Kabanoff & Holt, 1996), Padaki (Padaki,
2000) and Prilleltensky (Prilleltensky, 2000), Chippendale (Chippendale, 2004),
(Strickland & Vaughan, 2008) , Dolan et al. (P. S. L. Dolan et al., 2006; S. L. Dolan,
2011; Zhang, Dolan, & Zhou, 2009) and Day and Hudson (Day & Hudson, 2011).
According to Rokeach (Rokeach, 1973, 1979) values could be terminal (also referred
as basic, final, fundamental, intrinsic), when they refer to desirable end-states (or
35
outcomes), or instrumental (or operational, operating values), when they describe
preferable modes of behavior (or means of achieving these desired outcomes).
Wiener (Wiener, 1988) classified values into functional values, concerned with the
goals, functions and styles of operations (e.g. “The customer is king”) and elitist
values, concerned with the status, superiority and importance of the organization
itself (e.g. “We are number one”). Zahra (Zahra, 1991) proposed individual-centered
values (focused on how people are viewed and treated by the organization) and
competitive-focused values (concerned with how people in the organization approach
company objectives and goals). Similarly Kabanoff and Holt (Kabanoff & Holt, 1996),
and Padaki (Padaki, 2000) introduced task-related values and people-related values,
where task-related values describe desired characteristics of performed tasks (e.g.
customer-centered, empowering organizational structures, etc.), while people-related
values are describing desired characteristics of people (e.g. honesty, openness, etc.).
Jaakson (Jaakson, 2010) also made a distinction between values at the individual
and organizational level. According to Prilleltensky (Prilleltensky, 2000) values could
be classified into values of personal, collective and relational wellness depending on
whether they emphasize personal or collective well-being or mediate the well-being
of individuals and groups. Chippendale (Chippendale, 2004) linked control, ethical
and development values with the three business strategies (of operational
excellence, customer intimacy and product leadership) proposed by Treacy and
Wiersema (Treacy & Wiersema, 1993). In analogy with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
Strickland and Vaughan (Strickland & Vaughan, 2008) presented for types of values,
including financial competence values, securing the survival of the organization,
accountability values, protecting organization from unethical behavior and its
negative consequences, reciprocity values, securing the clear understanding of what
36
the organization seeks to do, how and why, respect values, securing relationship
development, sense of contribution and self-esteem. Dolan et al. (P. S. L. Dolan et
al., 2006; S. L. Dolan, 2011; Zhang et al., 2009) proposed a three-dimension triaxial
model, where values are classified as economic values, concerned with the survival
of the organization, emotional values, concerned with people welfare and ethical
values, concerned with corporate social responsibility and society. Lately Day and
Hudson (Day & Hudson, 2011) distinguished between other-directed and selfdirected organizational values, depending on whether they refer to the organization
itself or external parties. Table 14 briefly summarizes the categories of organizational
values by their primary focus or concern.
The five categories, presenting different types of organizational values by the way
they are incorporated (or institutionalized) within the organization, are proposed by
(Argyris & Schon, 1978), Griseri (Griseri, 1998) and Maccoby (Maccoby, 1998),
Hultman (Hultman, 2001), Lencioni (Lencioni, 2002) and Cha and Edmondson (Cha
& Edmondson, 2006). According to Argyris and Schon (Argyris & Schon, 1978)
values could be espoused, when they are explicitly stated by the organization, or
enacted, when they are explicitly stated and actually exhibited (or converted) into
organizational behavior. Similar classification is proposed by Hutman (Hultman,
2001), where values are classified into espoused values - the values said to be hold
by the organization, actual values - the values the organization act on, and desired
values - the values the organization would like to be moving toward. Maccoby
(Maccoby, 1998) and Griseri (Griseri, 1998), by analyzing how values should be
approached and managed, proposed values as ideals (inspiring the “ideal” kind of
behavior), which should be identified, shared and agreed by all stakeholders, values
as behavior (closing the gap between the ideal and actual organizational behavior),
37
which should be measurable and used as instruments for stakeholder recognitions,
promotions, etc. and values as character (personal values), which should be
approached carefully by combination of logic, incentives and coaching. Lencioni
(Lencioni, 2002) classified values into core values, which are deeply ingrained within
the organization and guiding all of its actions, aspirational values, which are currently
missing within the organization but needed for its future success, permission-to-play
values, reflecting the minimum behavior and social standards required for any
employee and accidental values, rising spontaneously without being cultivated. Cha
and Edmondson (Cha & Edmondson, 2006), by examining how organizational values
are perceived by organizational members, identified two types of values – sent
values, the values as perceived by the leaders of the organization, and expanded
values, the values as perceived by the employees of the organization. Table 15
further summarizes the categories of organizational values by the way they are
incorporated into the organization.
The four categories, classifying organizational values based on their function are
proposed by Abbott et al. (Abbott et al., 2005), Wenstøp and Myrmel (F. A. Wenstøp
& Myrmel, 2006), Nevile (Nevile, 2009), and Jaakson (Jaakson, 2010). Abbott et al.
(Abbott et al., 2005), based on cluster analysis, identified three clusters of values:
humanity values, serving the interpersonal work within the organization, vision
values, serving the future work of the organization, and conservative values, serving
the current work of the organization. Wenstøp & Myrmel (F. A. Wenstøp & Myrmel,
2006) classified values into created values, which objective is to fulfill the
expectations of organizational stakeholders, protected values, which objective is to
secure or prevent potential consequences (e.g. work accidents, environment
pollution, etc.), and core values, which objective is to prescribe the attitude and
38
character of the organization. According to Nevile (Nevile, 2009), values could be
outcome values, defining the objectives the organization should strive for,
instrumental values, defining how the organization should achieve its objectives, and
ethical values, defining what is good or bad for the organization. Finally, Jaakson
(Jaakson, 2010) synthesized different types of values into survival values, dealing
with economic issues, ethical values, dealing with ethics and behavioral norms, and
wellbeing values, dealing with fulfillment of organizational and individual goals. These
categories are further summarized in Table 16.
The last category, extracted by the review process, was proposed by Elizur (Elizur,
1984). By analyzing how values emerge within the organization, two types of values
were identified: extrinsic values, which are consequences of the work (e.g. revenue,
cost reduction, etc.), and intrinsic values, occurring through the process of work (e.g.
intellectual simulation, challenge).
Except for categories of organizational values, examining different types of values
within the organization, some of the reviewed articles have also defined or used
various taxonomies of organizational values. These taxonomies, unlike categories,
provide concrete sets of values and often organize them into a hierarchy (van Rees,
2003). From the 111 reviewed articles, 25 (or 23%) defined or used formal
taxonomies of values. In total, 28 taxonomies of values were extracted. 75% (or 21)
of these taxonomies were applicable to organizational values (following the criteria in
Table 8) and were further analyzed. One of the taxonomies, extensively used by the
reviewed articles, was proposed by O’Reilly et al. (O’Reilly et al., 1991) as part of
their Organizational Culture Profile. The taxonomy consisted of 54 values, organized
into 7 groups. It was derived from literature (Davis, 1984; Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Kilmann, 1984; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; E.H. Schein, 1985) and
39
industry, and was used to characterize both individuals and organizations. Quinn’s
Competing Values Framework (Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), with its 16
values organized in 4 groups, was the other taxonomy extensively used by the
reviewed articles. Table 17 further summarizes the taxonomies of organizational
values, extracted by the review process, including brief description of the taxonomy,
its references and the way it was derived.
As seen from Table 17, 14 (or 47%) of the taxonomies were derived from literature,
thus indirectly covering additional taxonomies of values (Peters & Waterman, 1982;
Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985; Treacy & Wiersema, 1993). In total, the review process
covered (directly or indirectly) more than 40 taxonomies of organizational values,
consisting of more than 500 value items. By analyzing the reviewed taxonomies
(Table 17), two types of organizational values emerged: stakeholder and operational
values. Stakeholder values were the values concerned with the stakeholders of the
organization, including individuals and organizations “that contribute, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and that are
therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers” (J. Post et al., 2002). Thus,
stakeholder values described desired characteristics of customers (e.g. customer
satisfaction), partners (e.g. partner trust), shareholders (e.g. shareholder wealth),
employees (e.g. employee accountability), society (e.g. society eco-efficiency), etc.
Operational values, on the other hand, were concerned with the function and survival
of the organization in terms of processes, products and services. The identified
categorization of values differed from the presented categories as it emphasized (1)
the existence of various stakeholders and the need to associate values for each of
them (Freeman, 1984); and (2) the importance of processes, products and services
as the glue, which holds stakeholders together and assure organizational existence.
40
Based on the value items from the reviewed taxonomies (Table 17), the category was
further extended into taxonomy of organizational values.
Figure VI shows the
hierarchical levels of the proposed taxonomy.
FIGURE VI
Taxonomy of OV
Stakeholder values
Operational values
Customer
values
Process values
Partner
values
Product values
Shareholder values
Employee
values
Society
The value items from the reviewed taxonomies (Table 17) were distributed to the
appropriate hierarchical level and were consolidated in a way that match the following
criteria: (1) to be constructs (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955); (2) to be terminal values
(Rokeach, 1973); (3) to abstract organizational goals rather than individual / work or
group values; (4) to be widely applicable in terms of organizational settings (profit or
non-profit organizations, private, public or voluntary organizations, etc.); and (5) to be
subject to organizational studies (in terms of existing research body). As a result, the
41
final taxonomy consisted of 39 organizational values – 25 stakeholder and 14
operational values. Stakeholder values, included:
6 customer values (customer
satisfaction, development, performance, trust, loyalty and involvement), 6 partner
values
(partner
commitment),
3
equity,
trust,
shareholder
development,
values
performance,
(shareholder
wealth,
involvement
and
satisfaction
and
involvement), 10 employee values (employee cooperation, respect, discipline,
accountability, competence, creativity, adaptability, involvement, commitment and
satisfaction) and 3 society values (society eco-efficiency, socio-efficiency and
involvement). Operational values, on the other hand, consisted of 7 process values
(stability, resource utilization, communication, shared understanding, performance,
continuous improvement and flexibility) and 4 product / service values (product /
service functionality, quality, complexity and innovation). More details on the
proposed taxonomy could be found in Appendix C. Although the taxonomy
consolidated previous taxonomies of organizational values, a formal evaluation is
needed in order to confirm its validity and reliability. As this was out of the scope of
the review process, the formal evaluation of the taxonomy was left for future work.
4.3 The relation between organizational values and organizational constructs
The relation between organizational values and various organizational constructs
was examined in 85 (or 77%) of the reviewed articles. This resulted in the extraction
of 76 organizational constructs, which were further split into 8 groups, depending on
whether they referred to Human resource management and Organizational studies
(HRM & OS), Leadership studies (LS), Team management (TM), Organizational
change and Development (OC & OD), Knowledge management and Organizational
learning (KM & OL), Organization-public relationship (OPR), Organizational
performance (OP) or Strategic management (SM). Figure VII shows the number of
42
extracted constructs per field of study.
FIGURE VII
Number of extracted constructs per field of study
30
27
25
20
15
11
9
10
10
9
6
5
2
2
KM & OL
LS
0
HRM & OS
OPR
SM
OP
OC & OD
TM
Figure VII shows that most of the extracted constructs were from HRM & OS,
followed by OPR, SM, OP and OC & OD. This could be explained with the promises
that organizational values have a significant impact on organizational decisions and
behavior, thus affecting various characteristics of employee attitudes and feelings (for
HRM & OS and OC & OD), organizational image and reputation (for OPR),
organizational strategy and prioritization (for SM) and organizational outcomes (for
OP). The distribution of constructs per field of study corresponded to the number of
articles per field of study (Table 18) and further confirmed that HRM & OS were the
studies mostly concerned with the effects of organizational values, followed by SM,
OP, OPR and OC & OD. It should be noted that most of the reviewed articles were
presenting empirical studies (Table 18), which indicates that the relation between
organizational values and the extracted organizational constructs was mostly
examined by means of direct (or indirect) observation or experience.
The 76 extracted constructs were further consolidated into 31 broader
43
organizational constructs. For HRM & OS these were: organizational commitment;
employee well-being (incl. welfare, work-life balance, work-life satisfaction, workfamily conflict, workaholic behavior, work enjoyment, burnout, psychological
wellbeing and perceived organizational stress); employee retention (incl. turnover
intentions); job satisfaction; employee development (incl. employee appraisal and
promotion); organizational citizenship behavior (incl. extra effort to work and extrarole behavior); organizational engagement (incl. work and job involvement, and
organizational participation); employee motivation (incl. employee mobilization
behaviors and feeling driven to work); ethical attitudes and behavior; and employee
recruitment (incl. organizational attractiveness). OPR related constructs included:
customer relationship (incl. customer welfare); supplier relationship (incl. supplier
welfare; public relationship (incl. corporate social responsibility, environment
sustainability, public involvement, social exchange and community welfare); and
relationship management (incl. relational attitudes, behaviors and outcomes). For
SM, the constructs were generalized into: strategy (incl. strategic behavior, strategy
prioritization and implementation); management (incl. organizational structure, order
and discipline, control processes and intra-organizational and social power); and
decision-making and prioritization (incl. operations research). OP consolidated
constructs included: employee performance (incl. employee productivity and effort);
organizational performance (incl. organizational productivity and unit performance);
marketing performance (incl. marketing effectiveness and brand building); and quality
(incl. service quality). OC & OD related constructs were split into: change
management (incl. change attitude and change adoption); innovation (incl. innovation
adoption, process innovation and corporate entrepreneurship); organizational
development (incl. continuous improvement and certification); and organizational
44
adaptation. TM included: conflicts management; organizational support (incl.
organizational socialization); organizational cohesion (incl. sense of community and
predictability); and collaboration. The consolidated constructs for KM & OL and LS
included knowledge management (incl. knowledge sharing) for KM & OL, and
leadership and sense-making for LS. Table 19 further summarizes these constructs,
together with their references.
The most studied construct in regard to organizational values was organizational
commitment with total of 19 studies, followed by employee retention and employee
well-being with 13 and 12 studies respectively. Table 20 further summarizes the top
ten constructs studied in relation to organizational values.
As seen from Table 20, most of the articles were presenting empirical studies. This
is also valid for the rest of the studies (Table 19) and further indicates that many of
the benefits, claimed by the research community in regard to organizational values,
were supported by some direct (or indirect) observation and experiences.
Nevertheless, there were studies which argued that additional efforts were needed in
order to take the advantages of organizational values. Such efforts included the
institutionalization (or enactment, incorporation and reinforcement) of these values in
the day-to-day activities and behaviors, managing (or balancing) conflicting values,
aligning values between organizational members, etc. (Abbott et al., 2005; Badovick
& Beatty, 1987; Bao et al., 2012; Branson, 2008; Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Ciulla,
1999; Highhouse et al., 2002; Merita, 2008a, 2008b; Michailova & Minbaeva, 2012;
Murphy & Davey, 2002; Padaki, 2000; Robin & Ruchira, 2008; Wallace & Gravells,
2010; F. Wenstøp & Koppang, 2009). These prerequisites are further summarized in
Table 21.
While the benefits of organizational values were thoroughly examined, their
45
limitations were barely discussed. O'Neill et al. (O'Neill et al., 2011) and Scott (Scott,
2002) argued that organizational values are difficult to change as they often reflect
the imprint of organizational founders and are deeply embedded in the culture of the
organization. Merita (Merita, 2008a, 2008b) further discussed the difficulties in
understanding and interpreting organizational values as they could be too abstract,
ambiguous and vague. Similarly Van Rekom and his colleagues (van Rekom, van
Riel, & Wierenga, 2006) argued that, although organizational members could highly
agree and subscribe to organizational values, they might have little concrete meaning
in their daily life and could still receive little or no cognitive support. Branson
(Branson, 2008) claimed that the number of organizational values should be limited,
otherwise this could create decision-making problems and would hinder their
application in the day-to-day activities and behaviors. Finally, authors as Murphy and
Davey (Murphy & Davey, 2002) and Ciulla (Ciulla, 1999) discussed the static nature
of values and the need to make a lot of assumptions to make value do something
(e.g. assuming that because people value something they would act accordingly).
46
5. LIMITATIONS
The presented review has its recognized limitations and threads to validity. One
such limitation comes from narrowing the search strategy to include only
“organizational values” as a search term, excluding relevant word synonyms (“firm
values”, “corporate values”, etc.), word combinations (e.g. “values of the
organization”) and other closely related concepts as espoused (or stated) values,
core values, value statements, and many more. This could result in minimizing the
likelihood of capturing all relevant data on organizational values and therefore
maximize the effects of publication bias (Song et al., 2010). The same is valid for
limiting the publication sources to peer-reviewed journals only, although they are
considered validated knowledge with highest impact on research (Podsakoff et al.,
2005). By excluding book chapters and conference papers some relevant research
on organizational values could be further omitted. The risk of publication bias is also
increased by excluding highly relevant studies due to unavailability (e.g. author’s
account restrictions) or language constraints (also known as language bias).
However, all these exclusion decisions were rationalized in terms of the limited time
and funding, which required minimizing the capturing of extraneous literature. In
order to mitigate the risk of publication bias some additional actions were taken,
including the use of several heterogeneous electronic databases, no restrictions in
regard to the field of study, year of publication and type of study, and the use of firstlevel backward referencing (by using the direct references of the reviewed articles)
(Song et al., 2010). These actions and the rigorous procedure of the systematic
review followed should have reduced the probability that the omitted research would
have contained information that would critically alter the findings of this review and
thus threaten its generalizability (or external validity).
47
There are some other variations of publication bias, which are common for
systematic reviews and should be considered when assessing the limitations of the
presented review. By heavy relying on the available corpus of published studies,
systematic reviews are subject to gray literature bias, the file drawer effect and
duplication bias (Rosenthal, 1979; Song et al., 2010). Gray literature is defined as
literature “which is produced on all levels of governmental, academic, business and
industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial
publishers” (Auger, 1998). Thus, using commercial electronic databases could result
in omitting a great body of “gray” but still valuable knowledge in the form of technical
reports, assignments and dissertations, white papers, etc. (Song et al., 2010). The
file drawer effect describes a phenomenon where unpublished studies (consisting of
conducted and not reported research) might on average report different results from
published studies, mostly because of the tendency towards publishing positive rather
than negative or neutral results (Rosenthal, 1979). In the case of the presented
review, the file drawer effect could explain the lack of articles reporting negative (or
neutral) results on organizational values, and the small number of articles discussing
their limitations. Duplication bias, also known as multiple publication bias, occurs
when similar manuscripts are submitted to more than one journal or same data is
reduplicated in two or more journals (Song et al., 2010). Assessing the presented
review for duplication bias revealed four duplicated studies, which are using the same
data and are reporting the same results. However, the duplication had no significant
effect on the reported results and the conclusions of the review, and therefore could
be omitted.
Another limitation of the presented review comes from the fact that the identification,
appraisal, selection and synthesis of literature were performed only by the author of
48
this paper. This could result in researcher and reporting bias, and inaccuracy in data
extraction, thus threatening the internal validity of the review. This is especially valid
for the appraisal of the initial pool of studies for relevance to the research questions
and sorting these studies into research themes, which was further complicated by the
difficulties in separating values at different levels of analysis and perspectives and
determining whether the studied phenomena referred to organizational values or
some other types of values (e.g. individual values, work values, etc.). To partially
overcome these limitations, the author strictly followed an established methods for
conducting
systematic
review,
guaranteeing
an
objective,
transparent
and
reproducible procedures for reviewing the existing body of literature (Higgins &
Green, 2011; Khan et al., 2001) as well as previous frameworks for distinguishing
values at different levels of analysis and contexts (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Beyer,
1981; Perrow, 1986; Rescher, 1969; Rokeach, 1973; Schmidt & Posner, 1983).
Although there are some limitations and threats to validity, the comprehensive
conceptual consolidation of the existing body of literature, presented in this paper, is
reliable enough to help the advancement of both research and practice on
organizational values.
49
6. CONCLUSIONS
The conducted review suggests a number of conclusions. These conclusions are
further sorted into four groups depending on whether they relate to organizational
values research, the concept of organizational values, the structure of organizational
values and the benefits and limitations of organizational values.
Based on the descriptive analysis of the reviewed articles, the following conclusions
were made in regard to organizational values research:
1. The research on organizational values is steadily growing – Analyzing the
number of publications per year revealed a steady upward trend in values research.
Over the last decade (2001-2011) the number of articles concerned with
organizational values has doubled in size and for the first half of 2012 the published
articles were already 29 (which is a 30% increase compared to the average number
of publications during 2001-2011). Among the reasons identified for the increasing
academic interest on organizational values over the last decade are the emergence
of international business ethics in the late 1990s, the numerous corporate scandals in
the earlier 2000s, the increased public awareness and sensitivity to the side effects of
organizations (on environment, society and economy), and the increased number of
empirical studies which support the positive effect organizational values have on
work outcomes.
2. The research on organizational value is of sufficient quality – The quality of
organizational values research was indirectly evaluated using the weighted mean
impact factor (taken from the ISI Journal Citation Report) of the journals with the most
published articles in regard to organizational values. The journals, included in the
evaluation, covered 26% of all publications and had a weighted mean impact factor
of 2.56, indicating comparatively high quality of the journals. However, a more
50
comprehensive evaluation of the existing body of literature is required. It should take
into considerations various aspects of the published studies, including its research
type, objectives, design (incl. hypothesis, operational variables, how data is collected
and analyzed), findings, limitations (incl. treads of validity), etc.
3. The research on organizational values is multidisciplinary – By using the Subject
Category of the SSCI, five research fields were identified to be highly relevant to
organizational
values
research,
including
Business,
Psychology
Applied,
Management, Social Sciences and Psychology Social. This indicates that research
on organizational values could require multidisciplinary system approach, which
includes involving and exchanging knowledge from various disciplines.
4. The research on organizational values is dominated by empirical studies – 81 (or
73%) of all reviewed articles were presenting empirical studies. This indicates that
organizational values are mostly studies through direct / indirect observation and
experience and that there should be enough empirical data for the initial evaluation of
the benefits and limitations of organizational values and their implication to industry
and academia.
5. Secondary research on organizational values is scarce – Although there is
considerable amount of primary research, secondary research on organizational
values is scarce. From the reviewed articles only 4 articles (or 4%) were presenting
secondary research, mostly in the form of reviews. This could be problematic for
practitioners who would like to stay up to date with the state of research, as well as
for researchers who want to identify topic areas that were researched or where
research is lacking. Thus more secondary research on organizational values is
needed.
6. The research on organizational values lacks experiments and replications –
51
Among the reviewed empirical studies, only one was using experiment as its
research method and no study was a replication of another one. This indicates that
causality has been barely studied in organizational values research and that the
validity, reliability and generalizability of the existing research on organizational
values and its findings have not been rigorously evaluated (e.g. by means of
controlled experiments, replications, etc.). Thus more experiments and replications
should be conducted in the future in order to advance the organizational values
research.
7. Prevailing values (or value content) is the most studied topic in organizational
values research, followed by value alignment and value institutionalization – The
concrete set of values prevailing within the organization was studied by 76 (or 68%)
of the reviewed articles, which makes the value content the most studied topic in
organizational values research. The number of articles, concerned with value
alignment (the alignment of values at different levels) and values institutionalization
(the process of eliciting, defining, introducing and maintaining organizational values)
are relatively small compared to value content, with 28 (25%) and 21 (19%) articles
respectively. Although there is a considerable amount of research for each of the
research topics, more attention should be paid on values alignment and value
institutionalization as they are considered highly important for industry (Kelly et al.,
2005).
8. The research on organizational values is still divided on how organizational
values should be operationalized – The review confirms previous studies which claim
that a variety of measurement techniques and instruments do exist for studying
values in business and that there is no consensus on which of these should be used
and when (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Connor & Becker, 1994; McMahon, 1995; Meglino
52
& Ravlin, 1998). However, the review revealed some preferences towards using
score differences and rank order correlations (over polynomial regression analysis),
surveys (over content analysis) and ratings (over ranking and paired comparison).
By examining what is currently known in regard to the concept of organizational
values, a number of conclusions were made:
1. The concept of organizational values is well defined – Although the review
extracted total of 47 definitions of organizational values, they were more similar than
different. Among the identified differences were whether they are factual or
hypothetical abstractions, whether they emerge from collective beliefs, experience or
vision and whether they represent the collective values of a particular group or all of
the organizational members of the organization. However, all definitions agreed that
organizational values describe what the organization holds of intrinsic worth and that
they have influence (explicitly or implicitly) on the decision-making process and the
evaluation of individuals and organizations in terms of their actions and end states
2. The concept of organizational values is multidimensional – By thoroughly
examining the 47 definitions of organizational values, extracted by the review
process, many aspects of organizational values were identified to be highly important
for better understanding the concept of organizational values. Among these aspects
were the nature of organizational values, the emergence and timespan of
organizational values and the function of organizational values in the organization.
Thus a multidimensional definition, which takes into consideration various aspects of
organizational values, is highly recommended. This study provides such definition of
organizational values.
3. The concept of organizational values is not well articulated – Only 26% of the
reviewed articles explicitly defined the concept of organizational values. Further, a
53
considerable number of articles were claiming to examine the concept of
organizational values while providing definitions of personal values (23% of the
articles) or work values (3% of the articles), thus mixing the level of analysis (Agle &
Caldwell, 1999). Also organizational values were often used interchangeably by the
reviewed articles with other similar concepts as organizational culture (or shared
values), core values, espoused values, etc. This wrong articulation of the concept of
organizational values creates considerable amount of confusion and cause
misinterpretation of the research on organizational values and its findings.
4. The concept of organizational values is well distinguished from other related
concepts – The review revealed that values at different level of analysis (e.g.
individual values, work values, etc.) and organizational culture are the concepts
mostly associated with organizational values, followed by some closely related
concepts (e.g. core values, espoused values, value statements, etc.) and more
general concepts (e.g. ethics, morals, virtues, beliefs, etc.). However, the review also
revealed that a clear distinction has been drawn in the literature between all these
concepts so using them interchangeably should be considered as serious mistake,
which could increase confusion and cause misinterpretation.
In regard to the structure of organizational values, the following conclusions were
suggested:
1. The structure of organizational values is extensively studied – The review
extracted total of 20 categories and 28 taxonomies of organizational values. The
considerable amount of classifications of organizational values indicates that the
structure of organizational values have been extensively studied over the years.
2. The knowledge on the structure of organizational values needs to be evaluated
and consolidated – The large number of existing classifications of organizational
54
values questions whether new classifications could be beneficial for academia and
suggests that they could even create some additional issues for research and
practice if continuity is lacking (e.g. create difficulties in selecting which taxonomy of
organizational values to be used). Thus, in order to develop a coherent body of
knowledge in regard to the structure of organizational values, an evaluation and
consolidation of the existing classifications of organizational values is highly
recommended. This study takes a step in this direction by consolidating more than 40
taxonomies of organizational values (consisting of more than 500 value items) into a
single taxonomy using the Stakeholder theory.
By examining the relation between organizational values and various organizational
constructs, the following conclusions were made in regard to the benefits and
limitations of organizational values:
1. The benefits of organizational values are well defined - 85 (or 77%) of the
reviewed articles were examining the relation between organizational values and
various organizational constructs. In total, 76 organizational constructs were claimed
to be positively affected by various attributes of organizational values (e.g. prevailing
values, value congruence, etc.). Most of these claims were further supported by
some direct or indirect observation and experiences. Therefore, the benefits of
organizational values are well determined by organizational values research.
2. Organizational values influence variety of organizational phenomena – Further
analyzing the 76 organizational constructs, extracted by the review process, revealed
that organizational values could influence a variety of organizational phenomena
from Human resource management and Organizational studies (e.g. employee
retention and recruitment, job satisfaction, employee motivation, etc.), Leadership
studies (e.g. leadership, sense-making, etc.), Team management (e.g. collaboration,
55
support,
etc.),
Organizational
change
and
Development
(e.g.
innovation,
organizational adaptation, etc.), Organization-public relationship (e.g. customer
relationship, public relationship, etc.), Strategic management (e.g. decision-making
and prioritization, organizational structure, etc.), Organizational performance and
Knowledge management and Organizational learning. Thus organizational values
could have substantial influence on various aspects of organizational life.
3. Organizational values are most beneficial to Human resource management and
Organizational studies – From the 76 organizational constructs, claimed to be
positively affected by organizational values, 27 (or 36%) were constructs from Human
resource management and Organizational studies. Respectively, the most studied
organizational constructs were organizational commitment, employee retention and
employee well-being with 19, 13 and 12 studies respectively. Other fields which could
benefit from organizational values are Strategic management, Organizational
performance, Organization-public relationship and Organizational change and
development.
4. The negative effects of organizational values and their limitations have been
barely studied – None of the reviewed articles was reporting negative (or neutral)
results in regard to organizational values, and only small number of articles (8
articles) was discussing their limitations. This could be problematic for industry, which
has to be aware of possible side effects and limitations of organizational values. Thus
more research is needed in this regard.
By systematically reviewing the existing body of literature and consolidating what is
currently known in regard to organizational values, it is hoped that this study will
further advance both research and practice on organizational values.
56
7. REFERENCES
Abbott, Geoffrey N., White, Fiona A., & Charles, Margaret A. (2005). Linking values
and organizational commitment: A correlational and experimental investigation in
two organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4),
531-551. doi: 10.1348/096317905x26174
Agle, Bradley R., & Caldwell, Craig B. (1999). Understanding Research on Values in
Business.
Business
&
Society,
38(3),
326-387.
doi:
10.1177/000765039903800305
Akaah, Ishmael P., & Lund, Daulatram. (1994). The Influence of Personal and
Organizational Values on Marketing Professionals' Ethical Behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 13(6), 417-430.
Allport, G.W., Vernon, P.E., & Lindzey, G. (1960). Study of values: a scale for
measuring the dominant interests in personality. Manual: Houghton Mifflin.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Auger, C.P. (1998). Information sources in grey literature: Bowker-Saur.
Avedisian, Joyce, & Bennet, Alex. (2010). Values as knowledge: a new frame of
reference for a new generation of knowledge workers. On the Horizon, 18(3), 255265.
Badovick, Gordon J., & Beatty, Sharon E. (1987). Shared Organizational Values:
Measurement and Impact Upon Strategic Marketing Implementation. Journal of
the
Academy
of
Marketing
Science,
15(1),
19-26.
doi:
10.1177/009207038701500103
Bamberger,
Ingolf.
(1986).
Values
and
Strategic
Behaviour.
Management
International Review, 26(4), 57-69.
Bano, M., & Ikram, N. (2010, 22-27 Aug. 2010). Issues and Challenges of
Requirement Engineering in Service Oriented Software Development. Paper
presented at the Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA), 2010 Fifth
International Conference on.
Bansal, Pratima. (2003). From Issues to Actions: The Importance of Individual
Concerns and Organizational Values in Responding to Natural Environmental
Issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510-527.
57
Bao, Yuanjie, Vedina, Rebekka, Moodie, Scott, & Dolan, Simon. (2012). The
relationship between value incongruence and individual and organizational wellbeing outcomes: an exploratory study among Catalan nurses. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, no-no. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06045.x
Becker, Alexander, Widjaja, Thomas, & Buxmann, Peter. (2011). Value Potentials
and Challenges of Service-Oriented Architectures. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 3(4), 199-210. doi: 10.1007/s12599-011-0167-3
Berkhout, Tom, & Rowlands, Ian H. (2007). The Voluntary Adoption of Green
Electricity By Ontario-Based Companies. Organization & Environment, 20(3), 281303. doi: 10.1177/1086026607306464
Berry, L.L. (1999). Discovering the Soul of Service: The Nine Drivers of Sustainable
Business Success: Free Press.
Berry, Leonard L., & Seltman, Kent D. (2007). Building a strong services brand:
Lessons from Mayo Clinic. Business Horizons, 50(3), 199-209.
Beyer, J. M. (1981). Ideologies, values, and decision making in organizations. In P.
C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 2,
pp. 166-202). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowen, K. C. (1979). Personal and organisational value systems: How should we
treat these in OR studies? Omega, 7(6), 503-512.
Braddy, Phillip W., Meade, Adam W., & Kroustalis, Christina M. (2006).
Organizational Recruitment Website Effects on Viewers' Perceptions of
Organizational Culture. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(4), 525-543.
Branson, Christopher M. (2008). Achieving organisational change through values
alignment. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 376-395.
Brown, Ian. (2001). Organizational values in general practice and public involvement:
case studies in an urban district. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9(3),
159-167. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2001.00292.x
Buchko, A. (2007). The effect of leadership on values-based management.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 36-50.
Burke, Ronald. (2010). Do managerial men benefit from organizational values
supporting work-personal life balance? Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 25(2), 91-99.
58
Burke, Ronald J. (1997). Culture’s consequences: organizational values, familyfriendliness and a level playing field. Women In Management Review, 12(6), 222227.
Burke, Ronald J. (2000). Workaholism among women managers: personal and
workplace correlates. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 520-534.
Burke, Ronald J. (2001a). Organizational values, work experiences and satisfactions
among
managerial
and
professional
women.
Journal
of
Management
Development, 20(4), 346-354.
Burke, Ronald J. (2001b). Workaholism in organizations: the role of organizational
values. Personnel Review, 30(6), 637-645.
Burke, Ronald J. (2002). Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions
among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men? Women
In Management Review, 17(5), 228-236.
Burke, Ronald J. (2010). Managers, balance, and fulfilling lives. Gender in
Management: An International Journal, 25(2), 86-90.
Burke, Ronald J., Burgess, Zena, & Oberrlaid, Fay. (2004). Do male psychologists
benefit from organizational values supporting work-personal life balance? Equal
Opportunities International, 23(1), 97-107.
Burke, Ronald J., Oberklaid, Fay, & Burgess, Zena. (1993). ORGANIZATIONAL
VALUES,
WORK
AUSTRALIAN
EXPERIENCES,
PSYCHOLOGISTS.
AND
International
SATISFACTIONS
Journal
of
AMONG
Organizational
Analysis, 11(2), 123-135.
Cennamo, Lucy, & Gardner, Dianne. (2008). Generational differences in work values,
outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23(8), 891-906.
Cha, Sandra E., & Edmondson, Amy C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership,
attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(1), 57-78.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization
in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Chatman, Jennifer A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A
Model of Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–
349.
59
Cheng, Kevin H. C., Hui, C. Harry, & Wang, Yongli. (2011). Congruency between
organizational service climate and personal values in Hong Kong. Journal of
Psychological
Issues
in
Organizational
Culture,
2(2),
5-16.
doi:
10.1002/jpoc.20061
Chippendale,
P.
(2004).
A
business
case
for
values.
http://www.minessence.net/articles/A%20Business%20case%20for%20values%2
0_3_.pdf
Choudhury, P., Sarkar, A., & Debnath, N. C. (2011, 26-29 July 2011). Deployment of
Service Oriented architecture in MANET: A research roadmap. Paper presented
at the Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2011 9th IEEE International Conference on.
Ciulla, Joanne B. (1999). The importance of leadership in shaping business values.
Long Range Planning, 32(2), 166-172.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building Your Company's Vision. Harvard
Business Review, 74, 65-78.
Collins, J., & Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies: HarperCollins.
Connor, Patrick E., & Becker, Boris W. (1975). Values and the Organization:
Suggestions for Research. The Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 550561.
Connor, Patrick E., & Becker, Boris W. (1994). Personal Values and Management:
What do we Know and Why don't we Know more? j manage inquiry, 3(1), 67-73.
doi: 10.1177/105649269431011
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared
behaviors expectations in organizations: the reliability and validity of the
Organizational Culture Inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.
Cram, W. Alec. (2012). Aligning organizational values in systems development
projects. Management Research Review, 35(8), 709-726.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Dalton, Catherine M. (2006). When organizational values are mere rhetoric. Business
Horizons, 49(5), 345-348.
Davis, S. (1984). Managing corporate culture. Cambridge: Ballinger.
60
Day, Nancy E., & Hudson, Doranne. (2011). US small company leaders' religious
motivation and other-directed organizational values. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(4), 361-379.
Dbaibo, Dania, Harb, Charles, & Van Meurs, Nathalie. (2010). Values and Justice as
Predictors of Perceived Stress in Lebanese Organisational Settings. Applied
Psychology, 59(4), 701-720. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00423.x
De Cooman, Rein, Gieter, Sara De, Pepermans, Roland, Hermans, Sabrina, Bois,
Cindy Du, Caers, Ralf, & Jegers, Marc. (2009). Person–organization fit: Testing
socialization and attraction–selection–attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(1), 102-107.
Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of
corporate life: Addison-Wesley.
Detert, James R., Schroeder, Roger G., & Mauriel, John J. (2000). A framework for
linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 850-863. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707740
Dobni, Dawn, Ritchie, J. R. Brent, & Zerbe, Wilf. (2000). Organizational Values: The
Inside View of Service Productivity. Journal of Business Research, 47(2), 91-107.
Dolan, P.S.L., Garcia, P.S., & Richley, P.B. (2006). Managing by Values: A Corporate
Guide to Living, Being Alive, and Making a Living in the 21st Century: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Dolan, S.L. (2011). Coaching by Values: A Guide to Success in the Life of Business
and the Business of Life: iUniverse.
Dolan, S.L., Diez-Pinol, M., Fernandez-Alles, M., Martin-Prius, A., & Martinez-Fierro,
S. (2004). Exploratory study of within-country differences in work and life values:
the case of Spanish business students. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 4(2), 157–180.
Dolan, S.L., & Garcia, S. (2002). Managing by values: cultural redesign for strategic
organizational change at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Journal of
Management Development, 21(2), 101-117.
Dose, Jennifer J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative
application
to
organizational
Organizational
Psychology,
socialization.
70(3),
8325.1997.tb00645.x
61
Journal
219-240.
of
doi:
Occupational
and
10.1111/j.2044-
Dunn, Mark G., Norburn, David, & Birley, Sue. (1994). The impact of organizational
values, goals, and climate on marketing effectiveness. Journal of Business
Research, 30(2), 131-141.
Edwards, Jeffrey R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the
study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46(3),
641-665. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00889.x
Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 379-389.
England, G. W. (1967). Organizatonal Goals and Expected Behavior of Mnerican
Managers. Academy of Management Journal, 10, 107-117.
England, George W. (1975). The Manager and His Values: An International
Perspective. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Enz, C.A. (1986). Power and shared values in the corporate culture: UMI Research
Press.
Enz, Cathy A. (1988). The Role of Value Congruity in Intraorganizational Power.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(2), 284-304.
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, Katrin A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in
relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification,
job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77(1), 81-94. doi: 10.1348/096317904322915928
Feather, N.T. (1975). Values in education and society: Free Press.
Feldman, Jack. (1992). The case for non-analytic performance appraisal. Human
Resource Management Review, 2(1), 9-35.
Ferreira, Maria Cristina, Fernandes, Helenita de Araujo, & Corrêa e Silva, Ana Paula.
(2009). Valores organizacionais: um balanço da produção nacional do período de
2000 a 2008 nas áreas de administração e psicologia. RAM. Revista de
Administração Mackenzie, 10, 84-100.
Finegan, Joan E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on
organizational
commitment.
Journal
of
Occupational
and
Organizational
Psychology, 73(2), 149-169. doi: 10.1348/096317900166958
Fischer, Ronald, & Smith, Peter B. (2006). Who Cares about Justice? The
Moderating Effect of Values on the Link between Organisational Justice and Work
Behaviour.
Applied
Psychology,
55(4),
0597.2006.00243.x
62
541-562.
doi:
10.1111/j.1464-
Fitzpatrick, Rona Lynn. (2007). A literature review exploring values alignment as a
proactive approach to conflict management. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 18(3), 280-305.
Gad, T. (2011). 4-D Branding. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Garza, Adela S., & Morgeson, Frederick P. (2012). Exploring the link between
organizational values and human resource certification. Human Resource
Management Review(0).
Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspective of organizational
strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 421-435.
Graber, David R., & Kilpatrick, Anne Osborne. (2008). ESTABLISHING VALUESBASED
LEADERSHIP
AND
VALUE
SYSTEMS
IN
HEALTHCARE
ORGANIZATIONS. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 31(2),
179-197.
Griseri, P. (1998). Managing Values: Ethical Change in Organisations: MacMillan.
Gruys, Melissa L., Stewart, Susan M., Goodstein, Jerry, Bing, Mark N., & Wicks,
Andrew
C.
Examination.
(2008).
Values
Journal
of
Enactment
in
Management,
Organizations:
34(4),
A
Multi-Level
806-843.
doi:
10.1177/0149206308318610
Gutierrez, Antonio P., Candela, Lori L., & Carver, Lara. (2012). The structural
relationships between organizational commitment, global job satisfaction,
developmental experiences, work values, organizational support, and personorganization fit among nursing faculty. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(7), 16011614. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05990.x
Hambrick, Donald C., & Brandon, Gerard L. (1988). Executive values. In D. C.
Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top
managers.Strategic management policy and planning (pp. 3-34). Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Hassan, Arif. (2007). Human resource development and organizational values.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(6), 435-448.
Hatch, M.J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of
Management Review, 18(4), 657-693.
Henderson, M., & Thompson, D. (2004). Values at Work: The Invisible Threads
Between People, Performance and Profit: HarperBusiness.
63
Higgins, Julian, & Green, Sally. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
of Interventions J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]
Retrieved from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
Highhouse, Scott, Hoffman, Jody R., Greve, Eric M., & Collins, Allison E. (2002).
Persuasive Impact of Organizational Value Statements in a Recruitment
Context1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1737-1755. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02773.x
Hinings, C. R., Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Kikulis, L. M. (1996). Values and
Organizational
Structure.
Human
Relations,
49(7),
885-916.
doi:
10.1177/001872679604900702
Hoffman, Andrew J. (1993). The importance of fit between individual values and
organisational culture in the greening of industry. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 2(4), 10-18. doi: 10.1002/bse.3280020402
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management
and Organizations, 10, 15-41.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture‘s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Huang, Min-Ping, Cheng, Bor-Shiuan, & Chou, Li-Fong. (2005). Fitting in
organizational values: The mediating role of person-organization fit between CEO
charismatic leadership and employee outcomes. International Journal of
Manpower, 26(1), 35-49.
Hultman, K. (2001). Balancing Individual and Organizational Values: Walking the
Tightrope to Success: John Wiley & Sons.
Hunt, David Marshall, & At-Twaijri, Mohammad I. (1996). Values and the Saudi
manager: an empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 15(5),
48-55.
Issarny,
Valérie,
Georgantas,
Nikolaos,
Hachem,
Sara,
Zarras,
Apostolos,
Vassiliadist, Panos, Autili, Marco, . . . Hamida, Amira. (2011). Service-oriented
middleware for the Future Internet: state of the art and research directions.
Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 2(1), 23-45. doi: 10.1007/s13174011-0021-3
64
Jaakson, Krista. (2010). Management by values: are some values better than others?
Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 795-806.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The Meaning of Organizations: The
Role of Cognition and Values. In e. B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate
and Culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jin, K. Gregory, Ron, Drozdenko, & Bassett, Rick. (2007). Information Technology
Professionals' Perceived Organizational Values and Managerial Ethics: An
Empirical Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 149-159.
Johnson, Russell E., & Jackson, Erin M. (2009). Appeal of organizational values is in
the eye of the beholder: The moderating role of employee identity. Journal of
Occupational
and
Organizational
Psychology,
82(4),
915-933.
doi:
10.1348/096317908x373914
Kabanoff, Boris, & Daly, Joseph. (2002). Espoused Values of Organisations.
Australian
Journal
of
Management,
27(1
suppl),
89-104.
doi:
10.1177/031289620202701s10
Kabanoff, Boris, & Holt, John. (1996). Changes in the Espoused Values of Australian
Organizations 1986-1990. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3), 201-219.
Kabanoff, Boris, Waldersee, Robert, & Cohen, Marcus. (1995). Espoused Values and
Organizational Change Themes. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(4),
1075-1104.
Kasten, K.L., & Ashbaugh, C.R. (1991). The place of values in superintendents’ work.
Journal of Educational Administration, 29(3), 54-66.
Katrinli, Alev Ergenc, Atabay, Gulem, & Gunay, Gonca. (2006). Congruence of
Family and Organizational Values in Relation to Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour.
Journal
of
Human
Values,
12(1),
81-89.
doi:
10.1177/097168580501200107
Kelly, Chris, Kocourek, Paul, McGaw, Nancy, & Samuelson, Judith. (2005). Deriving
Value from Corporate Values: The Aspen Institute and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
Khan, K.S., Riet, G. Ter, Glanville, J., Sowden, A.J., & Kleijnen, J. (2001).
Undertaking Systematic Review of Research on Effectiveness CRD’s Guidance
for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews, CRD Report Number 4, 2nd
Ed.: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
65
Khazanchi, Shalini, Lewis, Marianne W., & Boyer, Kenneth K. (2007). Innovationsupportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation.
Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 871-884.
Kilmann, R.H. (1984). Beyond the quick fix. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R., & Culture, University of Pittsburgh. Program
in Corporate. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture: Jossey-Bass.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and Value-orientations in the Theory of Action: An
Exploration in Definition and Classification.
Koslowsky, Meni, & Stashevsky, Shmuel. (2005). Organizational values and social
power. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 23-34.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1991). The Leadership Challenge. How to Get
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Zimmerman, Ryan D., & Johnson, Erin C. (2005).
Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job,
Person-Organizationa, Person-Group and Person-Supervisor Fit. Personnel
Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Ladd, John. (1970). Morality and the Ideal of Rationality in Formal Organizations. The
Monist, 4, 488-516.
Lankau, Melenie J., Ward, Andrew, Amason, Allen, Ng, Thomas, Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey
A., & Agle, Bradley R. (2007). Examining the Impact of Organizational Value
Dissimilarity in Top Management Teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(1), 1134.
Larson, Richard F., & Catton, William R., Jr. (1961). When Does Agreement with
Organizational Values Predict Behavior? The American Catholic Sociological
Review, 22(2), 151-160.
Leidner, D.E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems
research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS
Quarterly, 30, 357-399.
Lencioni, P.M. (2002). Make your values mean something. Harvard Business
Review, 113-117.
Liedtka, Jeanne. (1991). Organizational Value Contention and Managerial Mindsets.
Journal of Business Ethics, 10(7), 543-557.
Lipponen, Jukka, Bardi, Anat, & Haapamäki, Johanna. (2008). The interaction
between values and organizational identification in predicting suggestion-making
66
at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 241-248.
doi: 10.1348/096317907x216658
Maccoby, M. (1998). Making values work. Research: Technology and Management,
55-57.
Mannon, James. (1972). Value Commitment in a Normative Organization. The
Journal of Educational Research, 65(10), 444-446.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality: Harper.
McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1991). Identification of values relevant to business
research. Human Resource Management, 30, 217-236.
McMahon, C. (1995). The Ontological and Moral Status of Organizations. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 541-554.
Meglino, B.M., & Ravlin, E.C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.
Merita, Mattila. (2008a). Understandable and functional organizational values: true or
false? Social Responsibility Journal, 4(4), 527-537.
Merita, Mattila. (2008b). Values in organizations: difficult to understand, impossible to
internalize? Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1), 24-33.
Michailova, Snejina, & Minbaeva, Dana B. (2012). Organizational values and
knowledge sharing in multinational corporations: The Danisco case. International
Business Review, 21(1), 59-70.
Moher, David, Tetzlaff, Jennifer, Tricco, Andrea C., Sampson, Margaret, & Altman,
Douglas G. (2007). Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic
Reviews. PLoS Med, 4(3), e78.
Mowles, C. (2008). Values in international development organizations: negotiating
non-negotiables. Development in Practice, 18(1), 5-16.
Murphy, Michael G., & Davey, Kate MacKenzie. (2002). Ambiguity, ambivalence and
indifference in organisational values. Human Resource Management Journal,
12(1), 17-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00055.x
Nevile, Ann. (2009). Values and the Legitimacy of Third Sector Service Delivery
Organizations: Evidence from Australia. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(1), 71-89.
Nigul, Leho, Kontogiannis, Kostas, & Brealey, Chris. (2009). The SOA programming
model: challenges in a services oriented world. Paper presented at the
67
Proceedings of the 2009 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on
Collaborative Research, Ontario, Canada.
Noblit, G.W., & Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative
Studies. London: Sage Publications.
Nyock
Ilouga,
S.
(2006).
L'impact
de la congruence
objective
des valeurs
sur l'engagement normatif envers l'organisation. Psychologie du Travail et des
Organisations, 12(4), 307-325.
O'Neill, Olivia A., Feldman, Daniel C., Vandenberg, Robert J., DeJoy, David M., &
Wilson, Mark G. (2011). Organizational achievement values, high-involvement
work practices, and business unit performance. Human Resource Management,
50(4), 541-558. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20437
O’Reilly, C.A. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social
control in organizations. California Management Review, 31(4), 9-25.
O’Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: corporations, cults,
and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. The
Academy of Management, 34(3), 487-516.
Ostroff, Cheri, Shin, Yuhyung, & Kinicki, Angelo J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of
congruence: relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 591-623. doi: 10.1002/job.333
Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge: Avon.
Padaki, Vijay. (2000). Coming to Grips with Organisational Values (Les valeurs
organisationnelles maîtrisées / Lidando com os valores organizacionais /
Enfrentándose a valores organizativos). Development in Practice, 10(3/4), 420435.
Pang, Nicholas S. K. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings: a LISREL model.
Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64-83.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: a critical essay: McGraw-Hill.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Free
Press.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 570–581.
68
Pittaway, Luke, Robertson, Maxine, Munir, Kamal, Denyer, David, & Neely, Andy D.
(2004). Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 5-6(3-4), 137-168.
Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Bachrach, Daniel G., & Podsakoff, Nathan
P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s.
Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473-488. doi: 10.1002/smj.454
Popper, Micha. (1997). The Glorious Failure. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 33(1), 27-45. doi: 10.1177/0021886397331002
Posner, B., & Schmidt, W. H. (1992). Values and the American manager: an update
updated. California Management Review, 43(3), 80-94.
Posner, Barry Z., & Munson, J. Michael. (1979). The importance of values in
understanding organizational behavior. Human Resource Management, 18(3), 914. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930180303
Posner, Barry Z., & Schmidt, Warren H. (1993). Values congruence and differences
between the interplay of personal and organizational value systems. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12(5), 341 - 347.
Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder
Management and Organizational Wealth: Stanford University Press.
Post, James E. (1993). The Greening of the Boston Park Plaza Hotel. Family
Business Review, 6(2), 131-148. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1993.00131.x
Prilleltensky, I. (2000). Value-based leadership in organizations: balancing values,
interests, and power among citizens, workers, and leaders. Ethics and Behavior,
10(2), 139-158.
Quenneville,
Nadine,
Bentein,
Kathleen,
&
Simard,
Gilles.
(2010).
From
organizational values to mobilization of human resources. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration,
27(2), 122-135. doi: 10.1002/cjas.114
Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and
Competing Demands of High Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:
towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management
Science, 29, 363–377.
Ranson, S., Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., & Walsh, I. C. (1980). From Issues to
Actions: The Importance of Individual Concerns and Organizational Values in
69
Responding to Natural Environmental Issues The International Yearbook of
Organization Studies (pp. 197-221). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reilly, Anne H., & Ehlinger, Sara. (2007). Choosing a Values-Based Leader. Journal
of Management Education, 31(2), 245-262. doi: 10.1177/1052562906292565
Rentsch,
Joan
R.,
Characteristics,
&
McEwen,
Values,
and
Alicia
H.
(2002).
Comparing
Goals
as
Antecedents
of
Personality
Organizational
Attractiveness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(3), 225234. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00212
Rescher, N. (1969). Introduction to Value Theory: University Press of America.
Rhenman, E. (1973). Organization Theory for Long-Range Planning. New York: John
Wiley.
Robin, Speculand, & Ruchira, Chaudhary. (2008). Living organisational values: the
bridges value inculcation model. Business Strategy Series, 9(6), 324-329.
Roe, R.A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: empirical findings and theoretical
perspectives. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 1-21.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to
the values of science. In M. R. (Ed.) (Ed.), Understanding human values. New
York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Stability and change in American value
priorities, 1968-1981. American Psychologist, 44, 775-784.
Rosenthal, Robert. (1979). The "File Drawer Problem" and the Tolerance for Null
Results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
Rosete, David. (2006). The impact of organisational values and performance
management congruency on satisfaction and commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 44(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1177/1038411106061508
Rousseau, D. (1990). Quantitative assessment of organizational culture: the case for
multiple measures. In
B.
Schneider (Ed.),
Frontiers in
Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 153-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, Robert F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84.
70
Sashkin, M., & Fulmer, R. (1985). Measuring organizational culture with a validated
questionnaire instrument. Paper presented at the Academy of Management,
Organization Development Division, San Diego, MA.
Sathe, V. (1983). Implications of Corporate Culture: A Manager's Guide to Action:
Periodicals Division, American Management Associations.
Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities: text, cases, and readings on
organizational entry, establishment, and change: R.D. Irwin.
Savoie, I., Helmer, D., Green, C. J., & Kazanjian, A. (2003). Beyond Medline:
reducing bias through extended systematic review search. International Journal of
Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(1), 168-178.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, Edgar H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Schmidt, W. H., & Posner, B. Z. (1983). Managerial values in perspective. New York:
AMACOM.
Schmidt, W. H., & Posner, B. Z. (1986). Values and expectations of federal service
executives. Public Administration Review, 46(4), 447-454.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and
Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Scott, Elizabeth D. (2002). Organizational Moral Values. Business Ethics Quarterly,
12(1), 33-55.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power: Sage
Publications.
Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., . . . Harvey, I.
(2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of
related biases. Health technology assessment, 14(8), 1-220.
71
Stackman, R.W., Pinder, C.C., & Connor, P.E. (2000). Values lost. Redirecting
research on values in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy, Wilderom, C.P.M. and
Peterson, M.F. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate (pp. 37-54).
London: Sage Publications.
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Congruence de valeurs et
engagement envers l'organisation et le groupe de travail. Psychologie du Travail
et des Organisations, 10(2), 165-187.
Stone, Dianna L., & Eddy, Erik R. (1996). A model of individual and organizational
factors affecting quality-related outcomes. Journal of Quality Management, 1(1),
21-48.
Strautmanis, Janis. (2008). Employees' values orientation in the context of corporate
social responsibility. Baltic Journal of Management, 3(3), 346-358.
Strickland, R.A., & Vaughan, S.K. (2008). The hierarchy of ethical values in non-profit
organizations. Public Integrity, 10(3), 233-251.
Tranfield, David, Denyer, David, & Smart, Palminder. (2003). Towards a Methodology
for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of
Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi:
10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value disciplines.
Harvard Business Review, 71, 82-93.
Tyagi, Richa, & Gupta, Meenakshi. (2005). Person-Organisation Fit: Practices and
Outcomes. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(1), 64-78.
Urde, Mats. (2003). Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of
Marketing, 37(7), 1017-1040.
van der Wal, Zeger, De Graaf, Gjalt, & Lasthuizen, Karin. (2008). What's valued
most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public
and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465-482. doi: 10.1111/j.14679299.2008.00719.x
van der Wal, Zeger, & Huberts, Leo. (2008). Value Solidity in Government and
Business. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(3), 264-285. doi:
10.1177/0275074007309154
van Deth, J.W., & Scarbrough, E. (1996). The Impact of Values: Oxford University
Press, USA.
72
van Lee, R., Fabish, L., & McGaw, N. (2002). The values of corporate values.
Strategy+Business Magazine, 39, 1-14.
van Rees, R. (2003). Clarity in the usage of the terms ontology, taxonomy and
classification (pp. 432-439). Netherlands.
van Rekom, Johan, van Riel, Cees B. M., & Wierenga, Berend. (2006). A
Methodology for Assessing Organizational Core Values*. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(2), 175-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00587.x
Vandenberghe, C., & Peiro, J.M. (1999). Organizational and individual values: Their
main and combined effects on work attitudes and perceptions. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 569–581.
Venters, C. C., Townend, P., Lau, L., Djemame, K., Dimitrova, V., Marshall, A., . . .
Hobson, S. (2011, 12-14 Dec. 2011). Provenance: Current directions and future
challenges for service oriented computing. Paper presented at the Service
Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), 2011 IEEE 6th International Symposium
on.
Verplanken, Bas. (2004). Value congruence and job satisfaction among nurses: a
human relations perspective. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(6), 599605.
Verquer, Michelle L., Beehr, Terry A., & Wagner, Stephen H. (2003). A meta-analysis
of relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473-489.
Voss, Glenn B., Cable, Daniel M., & Voss, Zannie Giraud. (2000). Linking
Organizational Values to Relationships with External Constituents: A Study of
Nonprofit Professional Theatres. Organization Science, 11(3), 330-347.
Voss, Zannie Giraud, & Voss, Glenn B. (2000). Exploring the Impact of
Organizational Values and Strategic Orientation on Performance in Not-for-Profit
Professional Theatre. International Journal of Arts Management, 3(1), 62-76.
Wallace, Sue, & Gravells, Jonathan. (2010). Telling a compelling story: managing
inclusion in colleges of further education. Management in Education, 24(3), 102106. doi: 10.1177/0892020608090406
Wenstøp, F.A., & Myrmel, A. (2006). Structuring organizational value statements.
Management Research News, 29(11), 673-683.
Wenstøp, Fred, & Koppang, Haavard. (2009). On operations research and value
conflicts. Omega, 37(6), 1109-1120.
73
Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of values systems: a focus on organizational effectiveness
and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13(4),
534-545.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A
sociological perspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values (pp.
15–46). New York: The Free Press.
Williams, Sandra L. (2002). Strategic planning and organizational values: links to
alignment. RHRD, 5(2), 217-233. doi: 10.1080/13678860110057638
Yao, Xiang, & Wang, Lei. (2008). Socially oriented values and reciprocity norm
predict organizational commitment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(3),
247-252. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00264.x
Yi, Wei, & Blake, M. B. (2010). Service-Oriented Computing and Cloud Computing:
Challenges and Opportunities. Internet Computing, IEEE, 14(6), 72-75. doi:
10.1109/mic.2010.147
Young, David W. (1979). Administrative theory and administrative systems: A
synthesis among diverging fields of inquiry. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 4(3), 235-244.
Zahra, Shaker A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate
entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259285.
Zhang, Yingying, Dolan, Simon, & Zhou, Yu. (2009). Management by values: A
theoretical proposal for strategic human resource management in China. Chinese
Management Studies, 3(4), 272 - 294.
Zheng, Li, He, Zhang, & O'Brien, L. (2010, 13-15 Dec. 2010). Facing ServiceOriented System Engineering challenges: An organizational perspective. Paper
presented at the Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA), 2010
IEEE
International
Conference
74
on.
APPENDIX A. GROUPING JOURNAL ARTICLES AND APPRAISAL CRITERIA FORM
THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
1. Does the article define the concept of value?
 Yes

No
2. Does the article make distinction between personal (or individual)
 Yes
values, work values, group values and organizational values (or
No

use any other level of analysis)?
3. Does the article discuss the relation between organizational
values and organizational culture?
4. Does the article discuss the relation between organizational
 Yes
values and other related organizational concepts (e.g. espoused
No

values, core values, value statements, principles, goals, etc.)?
CATEGORIES AND TAXONOMIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
1. Does the article use formal categorization of organizational
 Yes
values?
No
2. Does the article use formal taxonomy of organizational values?
 Yes


No
3. Is the category or taxonomy derived from literature or industry?
 Yes

No
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRUCTS
1. Does the article examine the relationship between organizational
 Yes
values and other organizational constructs?
No
2. Is the article based on an empirical research?
 Yes
75


No
3. Does the article specify its research objectives?
 Yes

No
4. Does the article specify its research design (incl. hypothesis,
 Yes
operational variables, how data will be collected and analyzed)?
No
5. Does the article state its findings?
 Yes


No
6. Does the article discuss its limitations and threads of validity?
 Yes
No
76

APPENDIX B. DATA EXTRACTION FORM
GENERAL INFORMATION (ALL ARTICLES)
1. Article identifier
Unique id for the article
2. Bibliographic
Author, year, title and source
reference
3. Abstract
Abstract of the article
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (HIGHLY RELEVANT ARTICLES)
1. Type of study
Review, theoretical or empirical study
2. Research topic
Value institutionalization, value content and value alignment
3. Research design
Additional information regarding how research was conducted
(e.g. the approaches used for data collection and analysis,
how operational variables were measured, etc.)
CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES (HIGHLY RELEVANT ARTICLES)
1. Definition of value (incl. references)
Verbatim from the article
2. Relation to organizational culture (incl. references)
Verbatim from the article
3. Relation to other related organizational concepts (incl.
Verbatim from the article
references)
CATEGORIES AND TAXONOMIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES (HIGHLY RELEVANT ARTICLES)
1. Category of values (incl.
Description of the category
references)
2. Taxonomy of values (incl.
Description of the taxonomy (or hierarchy, set,
references)
list, etc.)
3. Type of values within the
Taxonomy of personal (or individual) values,
77
taxonomy
work values or organizational values
4. Source of values within the
Literature, industry or not specified
taxonomy
5. Taxonomy evaluation
Yes or no
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRUCTS (HIGHLY RELEVANT
ARTICLES)
1. Organizational
The organizational construct as defined in the article
construct
2. Research method
Survey, experiment, singlecase, multicase
3. Research results
Positive, negative or no correlation
4. Research context
Description of contextual prerequisites for obtaining the
(incl. prerequisites)
results (e.g. values should be enacted or aligned into the
organization, etc.)
5. Limitations
Description of identified limitations in regard to organization
values
6. Details
Additional information found valuable for the review
78
APPENDIX C. TAXONOMY OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
STAKEHOLDER VALUES
Customer values
Customers might be end users or consumers, business organizations, government or
public sector organizations and those who are the recipients of the products, services,
etc. produced by the organization.
Customer satisfaction
Fulfillment of customer’s expectations in terms of
provided products, services, etc.
Customer development
Enhancement of customer’s knowledge,
(empowerment, enrichment)
experience, opportunities, etc.
Customer performance
Improvement of customer’s financial, market and
shareholder outcomes.
Customer trust (confidence,
Customer’s confidence in organizational
creditability, dependability)
capabilities and actions.
Customer loyalty (commitment,
Customer’s emotional attachment and
relationship, retention)
commitment to the organization.
Customer involvement
Customer’s active involvement within the
(citizenship, involvement,
organization.
participation)
Partner values
Partners might be suppliers (vendors, distributors, and all other parties on whom “raw”
input the organization relies on), contractors, manufacturers responsible for an
outsourced component, product, service, etc.), business alliances (business,
79
government or public organizations with whom there is some kind of agreement,
whether solutions-specific, geographic- specific, etc.), creditors, etc.
Partner equity (satisfaction,
Partner's feeling of fairness and equity with
fairness)
regard to organization's incentives.
Partner trust (confidence,
Partner’s confidence in organizational
creditability, dependability)
capabilities and actions.
Partner development
Enhancement of partner’s knowledge,
(empowerment, enrichment)
experience, opportunities, etc.
Partner performance
Improvement of partner’s financial, market and
shareholder outcomes.
Partner involvement
Partner’s active involvement within the
(engagement, participation)
organization.
Partner commitment (relationship,
Partner’s desire and willingness to maintain and
dependency, loyalty)
strengthen its relationship with the organization.
Shareholder values
Shareholders might be owners, stockholders, investors, etc. who legally own any part
of organizational share.
Shareholder wealth (value)
Improvement of shareholder’s financial wellbeing.
Shareholder satisfaction
Shareholder’s interests and expectations are
secured by the organization.
Shareholder involvement
Shareholder’s active involvement within the
(engagement, participation)
organization.
80
Employee values
Employees might be top-level managers (board of directors, president, vice-president,
C-level executives, etc.), middle-level managers (general managers, branch managers
and department managers, etc.), functional managers (supervisors, section leads,
foremen, etc.), and functional staff (engineers, accountants, etc.) who contributes
labor and expertise to the organization.
Employee cooperation
Employee’s ability and willingness to
(helpfulness, honesty, openness,
communicate, coordinate and synchronize ideas,
sincerity, collaboration, teamwork)
efforts, and behaviors toward efficient
accomplishment of common goals.
Employee respect (group
Employee’s positive feeling of esteem for other
identification, empathy)
employees and willingness to engage
psychologically and behaviorally with them.
Employee discipline (citizenship,
Employee’s acceptance and compliance with
integrity, ethical behavior,
organizational policies, rules and regulations,
transparency)
norms, code of conducts, ethics, etc.
Employee accountability
Employee’s ability and willingness to accept and
(responsibility, liability, reliability,
demonstrate responsibilities and to disclose the
ownership, trust)
results in a transparent manner.
Employee competency (expertise,
Employee’s ability and willingness to work out
diversity, proficiency)
complex and diverse job assignments.
Employee creativity
Employee’s ability and willingness to generate
(innovativeness, resourcefulness,
novel and useful ideas concerning organizational
81
entrepreneurship, ingenuity, risk-
products, procedures, processes, etc and their
taking, diversity)
improvement.
Employee adaptability (flexibility)
Employee’s ability and willingness to change due
to changing organizational environment and
circumstances.
Employee engagement
Employee’s ability and willingness to be involved
(involvement, participation,
in different aspects of organizational life.
aggressiveness)
Employee commitment (loyalty)
Employee’s emotional attachment and desire to
remain within the organization.
Employee satisfaction (morale,
Employee’s happiness and positive feeling from
welfare, well-being, dignity,
the job and the working environment.
recognition)
Society values
Society might be all the (or group of) people in a specific region, country or worldwide.
Society eco-efficiency (ecological
Minimizing the negative impact on nature
sustainability)
(including resource consumption, waste,
pollution, etc.), while preserving product or
service value.
Society socio-efficiency (social
Minimizing the negative (work accidents,
sustainability)
mobbing of employees, human rights abuses,
etc.) or maximizing the positive impact (corporate
giving, creation of employment, etc.) on society,
82
while preserving product or service value.
Society involvement
Society involvement within the organization.
(engagement, participation,
support)
OPERATIONAL VALUES
Process values
Set of interrelated tasks and their associated resources that, together, transform
inputs into outputs.
Stability (predictability)
Process assures the long term survival of the
organization.
Resources utilization (productivity,
Process assures full and productive use of all
efficiency)
available resources (including stakeholders).
Communication
Process supports effective, open and free
communication between stakeholders.
Shared understanding (alignment,
Process assures stakeholders are aligned in the
consensus, consistency,
way they think and work.
cohesion)
Performance
Process provides quick delivery of products and
services.
Continuous improvement
Process supports the identification and
(development)
optimization of suboptimal products and services,
practices and techniques, etc. on a regular basis.
Flexibility (agility, adaptability)
Process supports the efficient adaption to
83
substantial and uncertain changes in the
environment (internal or external) that require
rapid reactions from the organization.
Product values
Products might be all the outputs of the organization, including produced goods and
services, etc.
Product functionality
Product’s capability to fulfill multiple purposes
through a set of provided functions (or features).
Product quality
Product’s alignment to its specification and
quality criteria.
Product complexity
Product’s complexity in terms of required
competency, expertise, skills, experience, etc.
Product innovation
Product’s distinction from other existing products.
84
TABLE 1. RELEVANCE SCALE
Scale
Description
Highly Relevant (HR)
Organizational values are claimed to be the primary
focus of the research and the article could be referred
for some of the research questions
Significantly Relevant (SR) Organizational values are claimed to be part of the
research but are not its primary focus or the article
could not be referred for any of the research questions
Moderately relevant (MR)
Organizational values are discussed in the article but
are not part of the research
Slightly relevant
Organizational values are just mentioned in the article
Irrelevant
The study is not relevant in terms of context (does not
refer to organizations) or in terms of organizational
values
85
TABLE 2. SEARCH RESULTS AND INCLUSION / EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Exclusion / Inclusion
Number
Percentage
All articles found by the search strategy
361
-
Articles with abstract
337
93%
Articles graded as highly relevant
119
33%
Highly relevant articles with full text
111
31%
86
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF ARTICLES IN EACH THEME
Theme
Number
Percentage
Concept of OV
56
50%
Categories and taxonomies of OV
29
26%
Relation to other organizational constructs
85
77%
87
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF ARTICLES PER TEN YEARS INTERVAL
Min
Max Mean
per Year
SD
Time period
Number of Articles
1961
1
-
-
-
-
1962-1971
6
0
3
0.5
1.0
1972-1981
10
0
3
1.0
0.9
1982-1991
23
6
0
2.3
2.1
1992-2001
94
2
20
9.4
5.9
2002-2011
198
10
32
19.8
6.6
2012
29
-
-
-
-
88
TABLE 5. TOP JOURNALS BY NUMBER OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Journal Title
Number
Journal of Business Ethics
13
Journal of Organizational Behavior
11
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
9
Human Relations
6
Journal of Management Studies
6
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
5
Journal of Management Development
5
Equal Opportunities International
4
Group & Organization Management
4
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
4
Journal of Business Research
4
Journal of Educational Administration
4
Journal of Managerial Psychology
4
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
4
Organization Science
4
Personnel Psychology
4
The Academy of Management Journal
4
89
TABLE 6. NUMBER OF ARTICLES PER TYPE OF STUDY
Type of Study
Number
Percentage
Empirical studies
81
73%
Theoretical studies
26
23%
Review articles
4
4%
90
TABLE 7. EMPIRICAL ARTICLES PER RESEARCH TOPIC
Research topic
Number
Percentage
Value institutionalization
21
19%
Value alignment
28
25%
Value content
76
68%
91
TABLE 8. TYPES OF DEFINITIONS
Type
Level
Perspective
Personal values (PV)
Individual
General
Work values (WV)
Individual
Organizational
Group values (GV)
Collective
General
Organizational values (OV)
Collective
Organizational
92
TABLE 9. NUMBER OF ARTICLES PER TYPE OF DEFINITIONS
Type
Number
Percentage
No definition
55
50%
PV
35
32%
WV
3
3%
OV
29
26%
93
TABLE 10. NUMBER OF DEFINITIONS PER TYPE OF DEFINITION
Type
Number
Percentage
PV
56
49%
WV
12
10%
OV
47
41%
94
TABLE 11. DEFINITIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Citation
#
Beliefs, a group of persons, express by preference in the context of 4
identifying desirable courses of action and goals (C.A. Enz, 1986; Cathy A.
Enz, 1988)
Socially shared cognitive representations of institutional goals and demands 3
(Rokeach, 1968, 1973, 1979)
Central and enduring tenets that are intrinsic to the firm's mission and 3
unaffected by the external environment (J. C. Collins & Porras, 1996; J.
Collins & Porras, 1994)
Normative standards and guidance for members to behave compatibly with 3
organizational needs
(O’Reilly, 1989; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1991)
Important qualities and standards that have a certain weight in the choice of 2
action
(van der Wal, De Graaf, & Lasthuizen, 2008; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008)
As standards of importance they are criteria used to make decisions, set 1
priorities and develop strategies (Hultman, 2001)
Collective beliefs about what the entire enterprise stands for, takes pride in 1
and holds of intrinsic worth (E.H. Schein, 1985)
Latent concepts that refer to the way in which people evaluate activities or 1
outcomes (Roe & Ester, 1999)
95
Values are here-and-now beliefs about how things in the organization should 1
be accomplished (Kouzes & Posner, 1991)
Rules of life (Gad, 2011)
1
Decision rules for interpreting the complex and numerous signals within the 1
organizational environment and influence the organizational structure and
culture (Ranson, Hinings, Greenwood, & Walsh, 1980)
A corporation’s institutional standards of behavior (van Lee, Fabish, & 1
McGaw, 2002)
Standards for evaluating member behavior and organizational success 1
(Johnson & Jackson, 2009)
Ideals, principles, and philosophy at the center of the enterprise (L.L. Berry, 1
1999)
General and implicit beliefs that help employees decide what constitutes 1
acceptable and unacceptable behavior within an organization (J. A.
Chatman, 1989)
Unifying theme that provides meaning and direction for organizational 1
members (James, James, & Ashe, 1990)
The value system of an organization is a system of ideas and 1
attitudes. It embodies the notions of good or bad, of what is desirable
or what is not, that govern decision making (Rhenman, 1973)
96
TABLE 12. ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Relationship
Organizational values are core (or major, primary, essential, fundamental)
component of organizational culture (Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000; C.A.
Enz, 1986; Hatch, 1993; Henderson & Thompson, 2004; Hofstede, 1980, 1984,
2001; Hultman, 2001; Pettigrew, 1979; B. Z. Posner & Schmidt, 1993; Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1983; Rousseau, 1990; Sathe, 1983; Sinha, 1995; R. M. Williams,
Jr., 1979; S. L. Williams, 2002)
Organizational culture is the prevailing (dominant) values in the organization
(Hinings, Thibault, Slack, & Kikulis, 1996; Strautmanis, 2008)
Organizational culture is a representation (or manifestation) of organizational
values (Bansal, 2003; Kasten & Ashbaugh, 1991; Leidner & Kayworth, 2006;
Verplanken, 2004)
Organizational culture is the shared values in the organization (Deal & Kennedy,
1982; P. S. L. Dolan, Garcia, & Richley, 2006; S. L. Dolan, 2011; S. L. Dolan &
Garcia, 2002; Griseri, 1998; Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, & Culture, 1985; Kouzes &
Posner, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sathe,
1985; E.H. Schein, 1985, 2004; Edgar H. Schein, 1992)
Organizational culture is the values in use in the organization (O’Reilly et al.,
1991; Popper, 1997)
97
TABLE 13. NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES CATEGORIES PER GROUP
Number
Percenta
ge
10
50%
5
25%
OV are categorized based on their function or purpose
4
20%
OV are categorized based on the way they have
1
5%
Criteria for categorization
OV are categorized based on their primary focus or
concern
OV are categorized based on the way they are
incorporated within the organization
emerged
98
TABLE 14. CATEGORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES BY PRIMARY FOCUS / CONCERN
Category
Reference
Terminal / instrumental values
(Rokeach, 1973)
Functional / elitist values
(Wiener, 1988)
Individual-centered / competitive-focused values
(Zahra, 1991)
(Padaki, 2000; Prilleltensky,
Task-related / people-related values
2000)
Values for personal / collective / relational
(Prilleltensky, 2000)
wellness
Control / relational / developmental values
(Chippendale, 2004)
Financial competence / accountability / reciprocity (Strickland & Vaughan, 2008)
/ respect / integrity and self-actualization values
(P. S. L. Dolan et al., 2006; S.
Economic / emotional / ethical values
L. Dolan, 2011; Zhang et al.,
2009)
Other-directed / self-directed values
(Day & Hudson, 2011)
99
TABLE 15. CATEGORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES BY HOW THEY ARE INCORPORATED
Category
Reference
Espoused / enacted values
(Argyris & Schon,
1978)
Espoused / actual / desired values
(Hultman, 2001)
Values as ideals / behavior / character
(Griseri, 1998;
Maccoby, 1998)
Core / aspirational / permission-to-play / accidental values
Sent / expanded values
(Lencioni, 2002)
(Cha &
Edmondson, 2006)
100
TABLE 16. CATEGORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES BY FUNCTION
Category
Reference
Humanity / vision / conservative values
(Abbott et al., 2005)
Created / protected / core values
(F. A. Wenstøp & Myrmel,
2006)
Outcome / instrumental / ethical values
(Nevile, 2009)
Survival / ethical / wellbeing values
(Jaakson, 2010)
101
TABLE 17. TAXONOMIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Taxonomy of OV
54 values, 7 groups (O’Reilly et al., 1991), derived from literature (Davis, 1984;
Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Kilmann, 1984; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982;
E.H. Schein, 1985) & industry.
13 values, 3 groups (Abbott et al., 2005), derived from literature (Finegan, 2000;
McDonald & Gandz, 1991)
91 values, 9 groups (Strautmanis, 2008)
13 organizational goals (B. Posner & Schmidt, 1992), derived from industry
18 values (Ostroff et al., 2005), derived from literature (J. Chatman, 1991; Cooke
& Szumal, 1993; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983)
24 values (C.A. Enz, 1986), derived from literature (George W. England, 1975) &
industry
12 values (Padaki, 2000), derived from literature (Rokeach, 1973) & industry
9 values (Kabanoff & Holt, 1996)
8 organizational goals (G. W. England, 1967), derived from industry
15 values (Liedtka, 1991), derived from industry
9 values (Cathy A. Enz, 1988), derived from literature (George W. England,
1975) & industry
20 values (van der Wal & Huberts, 2008)
13 public sector values (van der Wal et al., 2008; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008)
102
13 private sector values (van der Wal et al., 2008; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008)
11 values (Badovick & Beatty, 1987), derived from literature (Deal & Kennedy,
1982; Maslow, 1954)
9 values (N.T. Feather, 1975; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985), derived from literature
(N.T. Feather, 1975; Maslow, 1954; Rokeach, 1973)
16 values, 4 groups (Quinn, 1988)
31 values (Dobni, Ritchie, & Zerbe, 2000), derived from literature
(Badovick & Beatty, 1987; C.A. Enz, 1986; O’Reilly, 1989; Peters & Waterman,
1982; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985; Treacy & Wiersema, 1993; Wiener, 1988)
15 values (P. S. L. Dolan et al., 2006; S. L. Dolan, 2011; S. L. Dolan, Diez-Pinol,
Fernandez-Alles, Martin-Prius, & Martinez-Fierro, 2004)
9 values (Quenneville et al., 2010), derived from literature (Abbott et al., 2005;
Finegan, 2000; Vandenberghe & Peiro, 1999)
24 values (McDonald & Gandz, 1991), derived from literature (Allport et al., 1960;
G. W. England, 1967; Rokeach, 1973)
103
TABLE 18. ARTICLES PER FIELD OF STUDY
Field of study
All
Empirical
HRM & OS
45
42
OPR
11
10
SM
13
7
OP
13
11
OC & OD
11
8
TM
9
5
KM & OL
2
1
LS
7
2
104
TABLE 19. RELATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRUCTS
Construct
References
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES
Organizational
(Abbott et al., 2005; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Finegan, 2000;
commitment
Fischer & Smith, 2006; Gutierrez, Candela, & Carver, 2012;
Huang et al., 2005; Johnson & Jackson, 2009; Lankau et al.,
2007; Nyock Ilouga, 2006; Ostroff et al., 2005; Pang, 1996;
Quenneville et al., 2010; Rosete, 2006; Stinglhamber, Bentein,
& Vandenberghe, 2004; Tyagi & Gupta, 2005; Yao & Wang,
2008)
Employee well-being (Bao, Vedina, Moodie, & Dolan, 2012; R. Burke, 2010; Burke,
1997, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002; R. J. Burke, 2010; Burke,
Burgess, & Oberrlaid, 2004; Burke, Oberklaid, & Burgess, 1993;
Day & Hudson, 2011; Dbaibo, Harb, & Van Meurs, 2010)
Employee retention (Bao et al., 2012; R. Burke, 2010; Burke, 2001a, 2002; Burke et
al., 2004; Burke et al., 1993; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; De
Cooman et al., 2009; Gruys, Stewart, Goodstein, Bing, & Wicks,
2008; Johnson & Jackson, 2009; Ostroff et al., 2005; Tyagi &
Gupta, 2005; Yao & Wang, 2008)
Employee
(Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Gutierrez et al., 2012; Huang et
satisfaction
al., 2005; Lankau et al., 2007; Ostroff et al., 2005; Pang, 1996;
Rosete, 2006; Verplanken, 2004; Yao & Wang, 2008)
Employee
(Feldman, 1992; Gruys et al., 2008; Gutierrez et al., 2012;
development
Hassan, 2007)
105
Organizational
(N. T. Feather & Rauter, 2004; Fischer & Smith, 2006; Huang et
citizenship behavior al., 2005; Katrinli, Atabay, & Gunay, 2006; Yao & Wang, 2008)
Organizational
(Burke, 2000, 2002; Burke et al., 2004; Mannon, 1972; O'Neill,
engagement
Feldman, Vandenberg, DeJoy, & Wilson, 2011)
Employee motivation
(Burke, 2000; Quenneville et al., 2010; Young, 1979)
Ethical attitudes and
(Akaah & Lund, 1994; Jin et al., 2007)
behavior
Employee
(Highhouse, Hoffman, Greve, & Collins, 2002; Rentsch &
recruitment
McEwen, 2002)
ORGANIZATION-PUBLIC RELATIONSHIP
Customer
(Day & Hudson, 2011)
relationship
Supplier relationship
(Day & Hudson, 2011)
Public relationship
(Berkhout & Rowlands, 2007; Brown, 2001; Day & Hudson,
2011; Hoffman, 1993; J. E. Post, 1993; Strautmanis, 2008; Yao
& Wang, 2008)
Relationship
(Leonard L. Berry & Seltman, 2007; Lankau et al., 2007; Nevile,
management
2009; G. B. Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000)
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Strategy
(Badovick & Beatty, 1987; Bamberger, 1986; Fitzpatrick, 2007)
Management
(Cathy A. Enz, 1988; Hinings et al., 1996; Koslowsky &
Stashevsky, 2005; Pang, 1996; Young, 1979)
Decision-making and
(Bowen, 1979; Burke, 1997; Fitzpatrick, 2007; Garza &
106
prioritization
Morgeson, 2012; Liedtka, 1991; F. Wenstøp & Koppang, 2009)
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Employee
(Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Dobni et al., 2000; Hassan, 2007)
performance
Organizational
(Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Dunn, Norburn, & Birley, 1994; Hunt
performance
& At-Twaijri, 1996; O'Neill et al., 2011; Russell, 2001; Z. G.
Voss & Voss, 2000)
Marketing
(Leonard L. Berry & Seltman, 2007; Dunn et al., 1994; Urde,
performance
2003)
Quality
(Cheng, Hui, & Wang, 2011; Nevile, 2009; Stone & Eddy, 1996)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Change
(Avedisian & Bennet, 2010; Branson, 2008; Cram, 2012;
management
Kabanoff et al., 1995; Lipponen, Bardi, & Haapamäki, 2008)
Innovation
(Khazanchi, Lewis, & Boyer, 2007; Lipponen et al., 2008; Tyagi
& Gupta, 2005; Zahra, 1991)
Organizational
(Garza & Morgeson, 2012; Stone & Eddy, 1996)
development
Organizational
(Avedisian & Bennet, 2010; Bansal, 2003)
adaptation
TEAM MANAGEMENT
Conflicts
(Fitzpatrick, 2007; Lankau et al., 2007; F. Wenstøp & Koppang,
management
2009)
Organizational
(De Cooman et al., 2009; Dose, 1997; Gutierrez et al., 2012;
107
support
Quenneville et al., 2010)
Organizational
(Larson & Catton, 1961; Pang, 1996)
cohesion
Collaboration
(Fitzpatrick, 2007)
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Knowledge
(Avedisian & Bennet, 2010; Michailova & Minbaeva, 2012)
management
LEADERSHIP STUDIES
Leadership
(Ciulla, 1999; Dalton, 2006; Graber & Kilpatrick, 2008; Reilly &
Ehlinger, 2007; Russell, 2001)
Sense-making
(Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Liedtka, 1991)
108
TABLE 20. TOP TEN CONSTRUCTS STUDIED IN REGARD TO ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Field of study
All
Empirical
Organizational commitment
18
18
Employee retention
13
13
Employee well-being
12
11
Employee satisfaction
10
10
Public relationship
7
6
Organizational performance
6
5
Decision-making
6
2
Change management
6
5
Citizenship behavior
5
5
Leadership
5
0
109
TABLE 21. PREREQUISITES FOR ACHIEVING THE BENEFITS OF OV
DEFINING, INTRODUCING AND MAINTAINING ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Organizational values are explicitly defined as part of official organizational
documents, corporate websites, employee conduct manuals, internal business
codes, etc.
Organizational values are understandable (e.g. could be explained by
organizational members if asked).
Organizational values are consistent (compatible and not conflicting to each
other).
Organizational values are well-known by organizational members (e.g. could be
named by organizational members if asked).
Organizational values are frequently communicated (e.g. patronized through
internal or external communications as corporate blogs, wikis, newsletters,
posters, social media, brochures, etc.).
Organizational values are associated with concrete organizational indicators and
measures.
Organizational values are relevant to the day-to-day work of organizational
members.
Organizational values are frequently revised in respect to their financial impact
(e.g. profitability, return on values, etc.).
Organizational values are frequently revised in respect to their non-financial
impact (increased organizational commitment, motivation, etc.).
ENACTING (OR REINFORCING) ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
110
Organizational values have major impact on the decision made by organizational
members (e.g. decisions could be argued in terms of organizational values).
Organizational values are strictly followed by organizational members (e.g.
actions support organizational values).
The behavior of
organizational members is transparent in regard to
organizational values (e.g. information, regarding organizational members’
decisions and actions, and their alignment to organizational values, is freely
accessible by other organizational members).
Organizational values are embedded in organizational routine (incl. its
organizational structure, processes, etc.)
Organizational members are continuously monitored in respect to organizational
values.
Organizational members are continuously evaluated in respect to organizational
values.
Organizational
members’
accomplishments
(incl.
compensations
and
promotions) are justified in terms of organizational values.
Organizational members are reprimanded (incl. punishment, sanctions and other
negative financial and non-financial outcomes) when they violate organizational
values.
Organizational values are a major consideration when recruiting organizational
members.
ELICITING AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Organizational members have influence on identifying and eliciting organizational
111
values (e.g. participate in the process of specifying and revising organizational
values).
Organizational values are representing the shared values of all organizational
members.
Organizational values are consistent (not conflicting or incompatible) with the
individual values of organizational members.
Organizational members agree on the benefits of implementing organizational
values (e.g. consider the implementation of organizational values as beneficial to
their work).
Organizational members are willing to follow and apply organizational values.
Organizational values are supported by top management (e.g. explicitly approved
and endorsed by C-Level Management, Board Members, etc.).
Organizational values are never compromised (despite of crises, recessions,
high turnovers, short deadlines, etc.).
112