There is a quiet assumption running through much of organisational life: that if we can just name the right values, clarify them, align around them, embed them, we will become a more coherent, purposeful, and effective enterprise.
But our experience in the Oasis Field Hub suggests something more complicated.
In some of the organisations we work with, across public, commercial, and third sector contexts, values are rarely unified, stable, or even fully shared. They are multiple, often competing, and shaped by history, identity, role, and power. What is presented as ‘our values’ is often, in practice, a partial settlement, a temporary alignment that holds until it doesn’t.
This doesn’t mean values work is futile. But it does mean we need to approach it differently.
From Values as Agreement towards Values as Practice
One of the most common patterns we see is the effort to create alignment through abstraction through meta phrasing. Organisations arrive at a set of words often embracing such ideas as integrity, respect and collaboration, that are broad enough to secure consensus. These values are well-intentioned. They create a shared language. They signal aspiration.
But under pressure, when decisions carry consequence, they often fall away.
Not because people don’t care about values, but because the values are not operational. They do not help people navigate the real tensions they face:
- Care for people vs financial sustainability
- Inclusion vs pace of delivery
- Long-term purpose vs short-term financial performance
In these moments, values are not absent, they are in conflict. The question is not whether an organisation has values. It is whether it has the capacity to work with values in tension when it matters.
The Risk of the ‘Values-Led’ Ideal
There is also a more subtle risk. The language of ‘values-led enterprise’ can sometimes obscure as much as it reveals. It can imply a level of coherence and moral clarity that does not exist. It can create pressure to present alignment where there is, in fact, difference. And, at times, it can function as a form of cultural control, where particular values, often shaped by those with the most power, are normalised as universal.
In these conditions, values work becomes performative:
- A way of signalling identity
- A way of stabilising narrative
- A way of avoiding more difficult conversations about trade-offs and power
We see this especially when organisations rely on highly abstract meta-values such as inclusion, respect, psychological safety, without grounding them in lived practice. These values are of course important. But on their own, they can become so open that they mean different things to different people, and therefore guide very little.
A more honest starting point: Values are contested
What if we begin from a different premise? Not that organisations are, or should be, fully aligned around a single set of values, but that they are values-contested systems.
In this framing:
- Different values co-exist
- Tensions are normal, not problematic
- Power shapes which values prevail in practice
The task of leadership shifts. It is no longer to resolve values into neat alignment, but to create the conditions where values can be:
- surfaced
- named
- explored
- negotiated
- and enacted with awareness
What This Looks Like in Practice
In the 90’s we worked with Mario van Boeschoten, with an approach called Procedure U, which helped us develop a different kind of values practice, less about defining the ‘right’ values, and more about building organisational capacity in three areas:
Working with real tensions
Instead of asking ‘What do we believe?’, we ask: Where do our values come into conflict in our actual work? These moments, often uncomfortable, are where values become real.
Making trade-offs visible
Every significant decision prioritises some values over others. The question is the extent to which this is acknowledged. When organisations can say, for example: ‘We prioritised financial stability over team capacity in this moment, and here’s why,’ they move from implicit to explicit values practice.
Staying in conversation across difference
In plural organisations, disagreement is inevitable. The critical capability is not agreement, but the ability to remain in relationship while working through difference.
This includes:
- surfacing minority views
- naming power dynamics
- resisting premature conclusions
The Cost of Taking Values Seriously
There is a final point that is often underplayed.
To take values seriously is to accept that they will, at times, cost. They may:
- slow decision-making
- complicate delivery
- reduce short-term efficiency
- require difficult conversations
If values never create friction, they are unlikely to be shaping anything meaningful. In some many contexts it is this need for slowing before connoting that is so frequently the stumbling block for organisations, and yet it is at the core of what shapes organisational integrity and humility.
Our Approach
In our work, we don’t start from the assumption that organisations need better values statements. We start from the reality that they are already navigating complex, often unspoken values dynamics.
Our role is to support leaders and systems to:
- recognise where values are in tension
- develop the capacity to work with those tensions
- and align structures and practices so that values are not just stated, but lived
This includes:
- working with real organisational dilemmas rather than abstract principles
- building practices of dialogue and dissent
- making decision-making more transparent
- and, where possible, reshaping governance to hold multiple perspectives
An Invitation
If we let go of the idea that values will fully align us, something more grounded becomes possible.
Values work becomes less about agreement, and more about practice. Less about clarity, and more about capacity. Less about statements, and more about how we show up when it matters.
The question is not:
‘To what extent are we a values-led organisation?’
But:
‘How do we work, honestly and effectively, in a context where values are multiple, contested, and consequential?’
