Imagine that you are having a problem in one of your relationships at work. If you are a normal person, you won't have to imagine very hard before settling on one of the problem relationships. You ask yourself, "I wonder what drives that person to behave that way. We're definitely not on the same page."
In this article on the connection between values and relationships at work we will explore some of the value systems that we commonly encounter. We will also focus on the core values of healthy relationships.
If we were to define healthy relationships as a mathematical formula, we would write it this way:
HR = 3V(S+P)
In plain English this reads:
"Healthy relationships equal three core values multiplying structure and process."
What are values? In the context of working relationships values are any concept that we consider important to that relationship.
There is almost no end to the list of values. Try these:
Honesty, integrity, loyalty, transparency, truthfulness, industry, effectiveness, efficiency, planning, evaluation, trust, friendliness, listening, communication, consensus...
The list goes on and on and on.
In our study of the successful working relationships that we have observed, we have discovered that there are three core values that are absolutely essential to a healthy working relationship:
Affirmation - Involvement - Servant Leadership
Many other values are important. Many values stem from these three, but these, in our view are the most essential. No healthy relationship will be found without them.
To be sure there are other value systems on the continuum of those that we see regularly in the work place. We have defined five separate value systems that merge into one another. The value system that we have defined above is in the center. It is pulled towards both ends of the continuum by the other value systems, and we find ourselves being drawn in both directions.
Next to the Relationship Model™ value system of affirmation, involvement and servant leadership we see the authoritarian value system where "might is right" and where obedience produces reward. More extreme in that same direction is the value system we see less seldom where a person in authority is driven by a desire or lust for power. This value system is the one that produces abuse of power and real harm to healthy relationships.
We are drawn in an opposite direction also. The "ideal" value system of affirmation, involvement and servant leadership may give way to a laissez-faire value system where we tend to avoid conflict and direct dealings with issues. In its extreme form we see a value system that is a complete abdication of authority. The confusion between forgiveness and accountability in many values-based not-for-profit organizations draws us to this side of the continuum.
In the Relationship Model™ we identify three core values that are essential to healthy relationships: affirmation, involvement and servant leadership.
We said also that there are other, less helpful value systems that we experience at work and to which we are continually drawn ourselves. In our working experience, we have experienced and have demonstrated the ones we would like to avoid as well as the three core values that we would like to model consistently.
On the one hand we have experienced an authoritarian value system that in its most extreme form is a value system that places power over any other value. On the other hand, we have experiences in others and ourselves a tendency to "live and let live" laissez-faire value system. In its extreme form this becomes a complete abdication of authority.
We want to explore the effect of these value systems on two core processes in any work environment: delegation of authority and responsibility and the process of accountability. You may wish to refer to the graphic presentation of this, which you may also print in color.
Affirmation, involvement and servant leadership will be experienced in the delegation of authority as freedom and empowerment and in the delegation of responsibility as ownership of clear goals. The process of accountability driven by these values will be characterized by success in reaching those clear goals and personal fulfillment.
An authoritarian value system, where "might makes right", has a less comfortable result. In the delegation of authority we are likely to experience a permission mentality, because we have not been given clear limitations to our authority. In receiving responsibility we may experience insensitivity to overload, because we have not been involved in negotiating expectations. Thus, accountability may be experienced as blame for failure or bullying for performance that was never clarified.
In its extreme form the raw lust for power will result in disempowerment and the enforcement of impossible expectations that were never negotiated or perhaps never even expressed. The process of accountability has degenerated to judgment, abuse of power and failure in our work.
On the other side of the continuum we have very different but equally unsatisfactory experiences in these two core processes.
With a laissez-faire value system where a manager may prefer to avoid conflict or confuses forgiveness with accountability we will experience the delegation of authority without clear boundaries. The delegation of responsibility in a "live and let live" value system results in unclear expectations. Our manager doesn't want to be demanding or hurt our feelings and in the process isn't clear either.
In its extreme form we have the value system that completely abdicates authority. This is the distant manager we seldom see or have interaction of any sort. Not only may that result in disempowerment, because we don't know what our authority is, but it may also lead to the abuse of power by the recipient of this value system. After all, no one is watching. The delegation of responsibility, or lack of it, results in ineffectiveness and inefficiency. The process of accountability is completely lacking. Success is unknown and even the most highly motivated employee receives no commendation for a job well done.
Les Stahlke, President
| 
