Respect

What it is? It really comes down to being taken seriously and taking each other into account.
Respect sounds as something rather obvious, but sometimes it is difficult enough. This especially is the case when it is as a value most needed: when you are dealing with people who are different from you. You may think of those people as strange, they may diverge from your definition of professionalism, they may be difficult to understand (and maybe you blame them for that) and they will probably test your patience. But it is them you have to respect (respecting people who are just like you is neither difficult nor especially fruitful).

Teamwork

The word ‘team’ is one of the most abused words in management. Who has not seen ‘management-teams’ that were in reality war-zones, complete with ambushes and betrayal? Who has not seen teams, or been in them, in which the members tried to outperform each other, damaging the team structure and frustrating all efforts of cooperation.
There is also confusion about the word ‘team’ due to the two dimensions in teamwork: team structure and team mentality.

Client friendliness

This value is often the subject of confusion. Does is mean that one has to always agree with the client? Surely not. What good are you to the client if you only tell him or her, what he or she already knows? On the other hand, insisting to know better than the client is also not considered to be client friendly. This may seem strange, as the client comes to you for a particular need and has thereby already recognized you as some kind of expert (be it an expert in selling cheese or an expert in checking figures). But you may know better than your client in an abstract sense (you know cheese or accountancy), that does not make you more knowledgeable for the particular situation the client is in and the particular aspirations the client has. No, client-friendliness must lie somewhere in the middle of all that.
What would the client appreciate as “client-friendliness”? To begin with, he or she would probably appreciate to be listened to, in such a way that he or she really gets the message that you do your utmost to understand the client. Helping the client to shape his or her demand is connected to that ability to listen to and communicate with clients.

Enquiry

Who was it who said “an unexamined life is a life not worth living”? Would this also apply to the organizational world? An unexamined organization is not worth being a part of? An unexamined client is not worth having? An unexamined boss is not worth following? Perhaps it does.
Enquiry is increasingly relevant to organizational life. It is increasingly so that the more successful organizations are those where there is a sufficient degree of organizational learning; that is, learning by individuals which actually change the organization. This requires people who are able to enquire (the right way) and an organization, with its structure and culture, which encourages that for as far as possible.
Does this mean that one has to sit and ask questions all the time? Of course not. Have you even noticed how the right answers invite to action? It is perhaps the most important value in the Socratic dialogues, in which Socrates typically relates what is examined to the present and future behaviors of the people he talks with.

Integrity

The problem with integrity is that it often falls in the same trap as sustainability all too often does: either it is a grand scheme that is way beyond you, or it is a behavioural issue; in fact, it is both. The integrity that matters is the integrity that others pick up on, be they clients, co-workers and others. That means that there is an aspect of behaviour, an aspect of mindset and also an aspect of organization (if the individual has lots of integrity, but the organization makes it hard to walk the talk it is of little use).

In brief, it is often equated with "walk the talk". But what does it take to "walk the talk", to be consistent in one's statements and behaviors? It requires awareness of one's own values, strentghs and weaknesses, drives and habits. It requires the some ability to be transparent about all that and the ability to be realistic (not making promises that are not doable). It requires the ability to deal with one's organizational and social context; e.g., when talking to a client, be aware of how your organization will most likely perform.

All this can in fact be difficult, but it can be trained and when one masters it to some degree, it will proove to be a strong basis for trust.

Authenticity

Organizations can benefit from the authenticity of the people in and around them, while you also see that they can create the opposite. In the latter type of organization, authenticity is often perceived as hard to control, not being a “team player”, etc.; in that organization, authenticity is sometimes called “being difficult”.
Authenticity has to do with being aware of what is important and being able to, more or less, act on that. This is especially relevant for participation in organizations, where we, consciously and often unconsciously, conform to the strategy and processes of the organization, and the norms of the social contexts. This is in some way efficient (if we would never conform to anything in the organization, we would not be allowed to be a part of it, let alone be successful in it). But do we make those choices, or do we allow those choices to be made for us?
There are, as so often, two sides to this. The one side is the individual, who may feel that choices have been made about him that he does not believe in, and he may, sooner or later, feel discomfort as a result. The other side is the organizational side, where the organization limits the value of the individual employee by not allowing that employee to be a part of the organization in an authentic way, also at the expense of the organization’s processes and stakeholders.

Wonder

Sometimes you can notice in little children the capacity, often al but lost in adults, to experience wonder. When I took my 8 year old nephew to a medieval castle, he showed it. Due to his height, he only saw the castle once he had passed through the wall surrounding it and then it hit him: what a phenomenal thing. He had heard stories about castles and seen pictures, but to actually experence it is quite another thing. He was truly impressed and eager to become acquainted with the new phenomenon (after the official tour, he wanted to take it a second time).

Perhaps, we could, as adults try to rekindle some of that capacity to feel wonder, to be impressed with something new without judging it. What would we learn if we could do that?

Beauty

The classic definition of beauty is "what is pleasing to the senses". How would work be if it were pleasing to the senses, to the client, to the business partner, to the member of the organization. Maybe we are reluctant to explicitly think in such a term, but it might well be that inexplicitly we already act on it.

Client friendliness

Client friendliness is, if anything, about the effort to deliver value to the client. That is not always the value the client asks for, as your professionalism may very well make you see a kind of value that will be much more in the client’s interests. But then, ultimately, it is the client who decides about what is in his or her interests; even where he or she has to depend on your expertise for a significant part of that decision.
At the very least, client friendliness means delivering value to the client while acting out of respect for him or her. Typically, this means paying attention to communicating with the client.

Professionalism

Professionalism has, as if often the case with values, two possible extremes: either high quality or, on the other hand, mediocrity. It is perhaps remarkable that they are not so far apart. It sometimes works out so that certain standards are defined, very professionally, which are then protected in such a way that no further development is possible. Obviously, that is not a very productive approach to professionalism.

Would not professionalism have to depend on an independant ability to deliver quality?

Reason

Is ‘reason’ a value? Some say it is one of the more universal values. It is also expressed as ‘reasonableness’. It is what makes fairness possible and allows you to cross the many differences between people, which are enriching, confusing and at times troubling. It is because of reason that the opportunities are seen within all that may be felt as confusing and troubling.
Some oppose reason to emotion, suggesting sometimes that people who appreciate reason have difficulties with emotion. Still, are emotions not full of reason? Do they not make sense, as a rule? Emotions are quite understandable. They lead to further thinking – reasoning -, while most of what you think will have an emotional component to it (fortunately, one might add). Perhaps it is better to see reason and emotion as mutually enriching.

Kyosei

The Japanese notion ‘kyosei’ means as much as “Living and working together for the common good” (see: http://www.canon.com/about/philosophy/ and Code by the CAUX Roundtable) . This means that working together overcomes the many ways in which people are often distinguished from each other, even barred from contact with each other. It often goes further than that, relating to the many ways in which the organization relates itself to the societies in which it operates.
Kyosei helps bridge the traditional gap between work and office, between work life and private life. This gap was not so long ago a hallmark of professionalism, while nowadays it is more often than not seen as a sign of a not-successful life.

Trust

Trust is a value that is, like the value ‘respect’, so obvious to many people that they often forget to mention it. Yet, why do I place my money in a bank? Because I have some trust that they use it to my advantage. Why do I have my car repaired at a certain shop? Because I have some trust in the craftsmanship of the people working there and in the honesty of the proprietor. And if my trust is not sufficiently met, I go elsewhere.
What is trust? Typically, it is connected to safety; someone you trust is someone you feel safe with (‘safety’ is perhaps in itself an underappreciated concern within organizations). Trusting someone means that you feel safe with that person, typically in a bond that has meaning beyond that very moment.
Of course, there are different kinds of trust, relevant to different contexts. Someone I trust enough to lend money to may not be worthy of my trust in lending to him or her my car, for instance. We see that within organizations as well. Someone we trust as a peer, for instance within a team, may no longer be trusted by us if that person has received a promotion or has moved from our department to the head office. This does not mean that trust is no longer possible, but it usually does mean that some attention has to be paid to it.
This shows that trust is related to knowledge; not just conceptual knowledge, also what you might call “emotional knowledge”; in other words, do people feel at ease with each other (it may sound vague, but it does play a role). It also requires emotional integrity; the kind of integrity where emotions and thinking, awareness and actions are in line with one another.
Organizations can be seen as systems of trust. They consist of structures and procedures which reinforce trust (and can also work out in the other direction). In modern organizations, with typically less hierarchy and more empowerment new and different systems of trust will have to be developed.
Trust is also a part of the quality that is offered to the client. It is not often made explicit, except where trust is lost. Obviously, one would want trust to be maintained properly before something happens that may damage it. The relationship with the client will have to sustain trust, less he or she understandably looks elsewhere.

loyalty

 The story of the whistleblower and the learning organization

Forgiveness

As a student of mine remarked, organizations that want to be sustainable have to be able to allow for forgiveness. This may sound like a religious value, perhaps a bit out of place in the business world. But do you share knowledge with people who will not forgive you if there is a flaw in the knowledge? Do you communicate well with people who converse with you in the style of an inquisitioner, inflicting more pain after the hint of hesitation in your words?