Concepts and classifications of values

Values are those moral beliefs and attitudes held by an individual person or a collective to which people appealed for the ultimate rationales that guide behaviour or action (Busher, 2006). These values are relatively stable beliefs that certain modes of behaviour or end-states are desirable (Maglino and Ravlin, 1998; Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith, 2004; Buchko, 2006). Such values are the essence of leadership in educational institutions (Frank, 2005; Greenfield, 2005; Haydon, 2007; Gold, 2010) because the values that people emphasise may influence the actions they engage in (Grojean et al., 2004).

Values can be classified into different levels depending on whose belief a given leader wants to reflect in the organisation that he/she is leading. According to Adei (2010) values can be classified into three: personal values that are brought about by our upbringing and education; organisational or corporate values; and societal values. Grojean et al. (2004) contend that the values that operate at these three levels have the potential to influence organisational behaviours. However, there are wide diversities as to which values really matter in VBL. While some argue that societal value is fundamental value that should underpin VBL, there are some scholars who argue that what matters is a leader’s personal value (Adei, 2010). Yet, there are some who view that organisational value holds the key position (Viinamäki, 2011) because the values

32

held within a group or organisations are the values shared by the group members who go beyond individual values (English, 2006).

In their attempt to moderate such debates, Graber and Kilpatrick (2008) argue that leaders should possess a strong foundation of personal values and moral principles but that should be congruent with the organisation’s values. Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2012) note that leaders who advocate for values that are not representative of the collective will not have the potential to inspire people to stand and act as one. It is because leadership is not simply about the leader’s values; rather it is the values of the constituents. Thus, from the foregoing discussions it is possible to note that organisational/corporate values are reflections of those seemingly conflicting values.

The corporate values, according to Alas, Ennulo, and Türnpuu (2006:274), can be represented in a model of values hierarchies containing nine elements. One of these is about business ideological value. This deals with the evaluation of the regular analysis of a company's economic activities, and the quality of the company's products and services and investment into the company's future at the expense of the present wealth. The other one is about leadership ideological values that gauge the staff’s personal interest in the quality of the company's products and services, and their participation in the development of the company's strategy. The authors further note that corporate values are also reflections of social values and cultural values. Whilst social values include good relationships among the staff and between superiors and subordinates, cultural values involve the established standards of professional behaviour in the company.

There are also personal values and ethical values, which are linked to social and cultural values. Ethical values include honesty, a person's self-respect and its preservation in all situations. Personal values comprise the leader's imagination, and his/her enterprising spirit and creativity in setting up and solving problems. There are also other values like those specialty-related to mode of life and organisational legal issues. Specialty-related values relate to the acknowledgement of an employee as a

specialist in his/her field. Values related to the mode of life consist of an assessment of the condition of the buildings and relevance of contemporary office equipment. Organisational-legal values involve the staff’s understanding of the company's objectives and the existence of professional directions.

Though the general assertion is that corporate values are the reflections of the aforementioned value systems in a certain hierarchical order, it is basically the institutional context that derives the order. For example, in unstable institution/social transience the focus might be on competition, survival and making money (priority might be given to business ideological values), whereas in stable institutions ethical values gain more weight than business ideological values (Alas et al., 2006). However, Albion (2006) argues that, although it is commonly believed that the commitment to maintain a desired value is tested when business does not go well, the real test comes even when the company moves onto the line of financial success. This implies that leadership ideological values play a pivotal role in terms of institutionalising values that should drive a given institution.

In relation to values’ hierarchy, it is also relevant to see how values can be inter-related. One of the means to see this relationship is in terms of means-end relationships. With this regard, values can be classified as instrumental values (means to ends) and fundamental (terminal/end) values. Terminal values are beliefs about visions (the kind of goals or outcomes that are worth trying to pursue) and instrumental values are beliefs about the types of behaviour that are appropriate for reaching goals (Daft, 2008). Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2012) contend that end (fundamental) values are represented by visions while the instrumental values refer to the “here-and-now beliefs”. That is, while end value refers to the ultimate rationale that guides certain behaviour or action, instrumental value refers to the actions we are taking or the priorities we give that are believed to lead us to our end.

In terms of the relative importance of the instrumental and end values, Kouzes and Posner (2012) assert that the domain of leaders is the future and thus the leader’s

34

unique legacy is the creation of valued institutions that survive over time as opposed to focusing on today’s bottom line. This assertion from its outset depicts that end value is more vital, but end values cannot be reached without the right means to get there. Accordingly, it would be more proper to put the right values, both instrumental and end values, into action. In connection with this view, a successful learning institution is one that places the value domain at the centre as the driving force (Sergiovani, 2003). VBL is basically about the use of these values as the driving force. Thus, institutionalisation of VBL requires that the right values need to be put into action and shared with the followers properly. Before stepping into the process of institutionalising VBL, it is worthwhile to begin by explaining the concept and characteristics of VBL as it follows here.