J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2238-0
Balanced Organizational Values: From Theory to Practice
Ivan Malbasic Carlos Rey Vojko Potocan
Received: 21 March 2014 / Accepted: 20 May 2014
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Theories of organization and management have
offered several concepts and models which indicate that
organizational values are an important factor for running
organizations successfully. A still unexplained question
concerns the creation of balanced organizational values,
which can support the achievement of several different and
even conflicting goals of modern organizations. To explore
balanced organizational values in contemporary business
practice, we tested different models of organizational val-
ues on a sample of Fortune 100 companies. Research
results demonstrate that none of the proportions/ratios of
balance proposed by the main models of organizational
values from existing literature possesses/presents the ideal
balance that is currently pursued in the business field. As a
conclusion, a new model of balanced organizational values
is proposed.
Keywords Balanced values  Fortune 100 companies 
Management by missions  Organizational value models 
Organizational values
I. Malbasic (&)
Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb,
Pavlinska 2, 42000 Varazdin, Croatia
e-mail: ivan.malbasic@foi.hr
C. Rey
Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Universitat
Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: carlosrey@uic.es
V. Potocan
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor,
Maribor, Slovenia
e-mail: vojko.potocan@uni-mb.si
Introduction
Modern organizations strive to achieve various goals:
economic, social, ethical, cultural, and environmental. In
order to achieve these goals and to achieve their purpose
(the reason for their existence), organizations use different
organizational values under actual business conditions.
Several studies confirm that an appropriate combination of
organizational values importantly influence the level of
organizational results (Peters and Waterman 1982; Collins
and Porras 1994; Rosenthal and Masarech 2003; Fitzgerald
and Desjardins 2004; Johnson 2009; Jaakson 2010; Kanter
2011; Dolan and Altman 2012). In addition, many authors
have already reported researches on different sets of
organizational values and, in that framework, pointed out
the importance of balance between organizational values
for achieving several important (but diverse) organizational
goals (Kaplan and Norton 1996; Barrett 1998; Gregory
et al. 2009).
Organizations need values pertaining to essentially dif-
ferent categories if they want to accomplish several, in
some cases even contradictory goals of their business. The
approaches and comprehensive models for the creation of
balanced organizational values are at this time less inves-
tigated or assessed. This raises the need for further devel-
opment of the concept of balanced organizational values,
as well as the development of a values model that will
support it.
Authors from the management field still try to develop a
unified approach for content-related examination of dif-
ferent concepts of balanced organizational values. Existing
concepts provide possible solutions, but the frequency of
success in attaining suggested levels of balance among
organizational values is still low. In addition, some recent
studies revealed contradictory results regarding the
123

possibility of generating balancing organizational values in
modern organizations, because originally the theoretical
models were created for specific goals and as such they are
targeting selected partial goals (specific elements of the
aggregate goal).
Our research is primarily oriented toward gaining an
understanding of how different existing models of balanced
organizational values fit the actual situations met in the busi-
ness field. This article addresses the above-mentioned gaps in
balancing of organizational values by providing an initial
empirical study which examines relationships between three
different value models when tested on a sample of Fortune
100 companies. This study contributes to the existing litera-
ture since it reports on the relations among the three consid-
ered value models, i.e., to what extent they are appropriate for
researching (and evaluating) balanced values in contemporary
business practice.
Review of the Literature
Organizational Values
Initial scientific researches of the values concept were
focused on the personal values of individuals. The psy-
chologist M. Rokeach was the first to study them system-
atically. He defined values as an enduring belief that a
specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is per-
sonally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse
mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach 1973,
p. 5). This is one of the most cited definitions of values
from which it is evident that values are by their nature a
psychological construct and as such inherent only to peo-
ple. Hultman and Gellerman (2002, p. 5) even more clearly
stated that organizations on their own do not have values;
however, organizations are composed of human beings
whose personal values shape the values of the organization
in which they are employed. From that point of view
organizations can be said to have values. It is therefore
necessary to distinguish personal from organizational val-
uespersonal values of the members in the organization
guide their personal/private decisions and actions, while
organizational values provide norms that specify how
organizational members should behave and how organi-
zational resources should be allocated (Edwards and Cable
2009, p. 655). As such, organizational values may simply
be understood as accepted and shared values within the
organization (Argandona 2003, p. 21).
The aforementioned framework allows us to define the
concept of organizational values (which will be referred as
OV in this paper) more precisely. Already two and a half
decades ago, Enz (1988, p. 287) defined OV as the beliefs
held by an individual or group regarding means and ends
123
I. Malbasic et al.
that an organization ought to identify in the running of the
organization, in choosing what business actions or objec-
tives are preferable to alternate actions, or in establishing
organizational objectives. This definition is actually a
derivate of Rokeachs value definition. A much simpler,
but no less specific/powerful definition was offered by
Collins and Porras. They determined OV as the organi-
zations essential and enduring tenetsa small set of
general guiding principles (Collins and Porras 1994,
p. 73). According to Mele (2005, p. 101), OV belong to
whatever is necessary, or makes a positive contribution, for
maintaining and improving business, as a human activity.
Finally, OV may be defined as beliefs and ideas con-
cerning the type of goals to be achieved by organizational
members and ideas concerning the appropriate types of
behavior standards that they should adhere to for those
goals to be achieved (Sikavica et al. 2008, p. 426). OV
explain what the organization stands for, what the organi-
zation believes, and as such they guide organizational
behavior and decisions (Walter 1995; Johnson 2009). It is,
therefore, not uncommon that for some authors OV are the
soul of the organization (Collins and Porras 1991; Hitt
1995; Batstone 2003), or even more concretethe key
element in strategic decision-making, because they are at
the core of the whole activity of the organization (Mele
2003, p. 192).
Regardless of which OV definition is used as a starting
point in this paper, they have an important role in business.
They form the organizational culture, giving personality
to a company, but they are also the engine that drives all
business priorities as well as the entrance and exodus pro-
cesses for members (Natale and Sora 2003, p. 10). In fact,
they are a critical element of organizational culture and
leadership, impacting both individual and organizational
performance (Posner 2010; Schein 2010). Numerous studies
have been conducted on OV and their impact on different
business success indicators (e.g., England 1967; Cohn 1969;
Peters and Waterman 1982; Woodcock and Francis 1989;
Dahlgaard et al. 1998; Devero 2003; Jarvensivu 2007; Ja-
akson 2009; Johnson 2009). All these studies arguably
imply the conclusion that organizations radically committed
to the business based on values are more successful than
organizations that do not pay attention to the importance of
OV. This finding is the reason why nowadays many talk
about the phenomenon of OV, and why they present a vital
research area.
Balanced Organizational Values
Although the OV and their role in business have already
been well researched, many aspects of OV still remain to
be researched and this opens possibilities for new studies in
this area. Mele (2003, p.192) indicate that choosing a
Value Based Management
proper set of OV seems quite relevant for organizational
success. However, one specific question addressed in the
present study is whether organizations should have bal-
anced values in order to work successfully. Balance of OV
is a characteristic of those organizations which evenly
develop values from different, and not only from a single
category of values. Categories of values should be under-
stood as groupings of values into which specific OV can be
classified. The key question raised in this paper is whether
contemporary organizations, considering the fact that they
operate in a dynamic environment and that they usually
want to achieve several different and even conflicting
goals, should develop balanced OV.1
The question of balance is one of those that seems very
logical in practically all fields of life, and especially in pri-
vate life. Hardly anyone will rate as successful a person who
achieves outstanding business results, but who does not have
family, true friends, vacation time, or any hobbies. But such a
person cannot be regarded as successful, despite having an
enviable professional career. Fortunately, many books have
been written about that topic, including the familiar best-
sellers written by Covey (1989, 1997) who clearly stated that
true effectiveness requires balance (1989, p. 161).
Similar to recognizing the importance of balance in an
individuals life, we can also understand the importance of
balance in organizational success. This is emphasized by
Barrett (1998) who found that balance in organizations is
as important as in individual lives. Accordingly, he offered
a tool called The Balanced Needs Scorecard, which rep-
resents the primary needs of an organization: corporate
survival (profits, finance, and funding), corporate fitness
(productivity, quality, and efficiency), and customer/sup-
plier relations (sales, service, and product excellence).
The role and importance of balance in business has been
confirmed by the research findings of Collins and Porras
(1994). Their studies showed that for real organizational
success it is not enough just to maximize shareholder wealth
and profit. Actually, earning money is just one (very
important) goal that a company should achieve, but practi-
cally all long-lasting successful companies in Collins and
Porrass research tried to evenly develop different types of
objectives that were all essential to their continued survival
and success. Those companies are well known as vision-
ary organizations, and one additional reason of their suc-
cess is that they have held on to their OV for decades.
Finally, the importance of balance in business has
become even more evident when Kaplan and Norton
1
This question arises from the basis of the stakeholder approach as a
concept used in explaining the functioning of contemporary organi-
zations. The basis of this approach, proposed by Freeman (1984,
p. 27), is the idea that OV must seek to integrate a number of
stakeholder concerns, which can be understood as the aspiration for
balancing the goals of the organization.
(1996) developed and published holistic balancing system
for improving organizational effectiveness, called Bal-
anced scorecard. It was established to cover four key
business perspectivesfinancial, customers, internal busi-
ness processes, and learning and growth. The Balanced
scorecard combines several effectiveness indicators from
each perspective into a single framework, balancing tra-
ditional financial measures with operational measures
relating to companys critical success factors (Daft 2010,
p. 77).
Psychosocial Taxonomy of Balanced Values
When talking about the specific need of balanced OV, the
two best known and most widely used approaches are
Competing values framework and Schwartzs values model.
These two models primarily consider the psychosocial
conditions of human nature distinguishing different cate-
gories that are represented and balanced in human condi-
tions. The usefulness of these models is recommended by
many authors, considering the fact that these models are
characterized by a very strong, as well as consistent and
widely applicable framework. It is therefore not surprising
that these models are base for many instruments that are
often used (some of these examples can be found in Bu-
enger et al. 1996; Kalliath et al. 1999; Schwartz et al. 2001;
Cable and Edwards 2004; Lindeman and Verkasalo 2005;
Ostroff et al. 2005; Susanj 2005; De Clercq et al. 2008;
Avallone et al. 2010).
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) presented the competing
values framework (CVF model), the most famous concept
of balanced values, in order to explain different types of
values existing in different organizations.2 Although this
model, shown in Fig. 1, was originally developed for
describing business performance, its most important
application was in the field of organizational culture
(Quinn and Cameron 1983; Kalliath et al. 1999; Susanj
2005; Yilmaz and Ergun 2008; Gregory et al. 2009), with
OV as its most important part. Gregory et al. (2009, p. 674)
accentuated the key advantage of balanced culture stating
that organizations with balanced cultures have a distinct
advantage in managing environmental shifts. Such orga-
nizations can quickly and easily adapt to the new condi-
tions in which they operate, without diminishing its
competitiveness.
2
CVF model is especially significant because it was the first to
indicate that in an organization exist permanent conflicting, and at
first glance incompatible values (e.g., an organization should on one
hand be adaptable and flexible, and at the same time stable and as
such suitable to control). Based on this model one of the best known
classification of organizational culture was later presented and
empirically tested by Cameron and Quinn (2006).
123
 I. Malbasic et al.

Fig. 1 Competing values

framework (adapted from Quinn
and Rohrbaugh 1983; Cameron
et al. 2006)

Consideration of balanced values would not be complete

without a Schwartz theory called Universals in the Content
and Structure of Values, as well as Schwartzs values model
which is derived from it (Schwartz 1992). This theory/model
defines ten different motivational types of values represented
by 56 specific values. What is unique in Schwartzs values
model is that motivational types of values form a circular
structure on the basis of the dynamic relations between them;
in this mode of representation compatible types of values are
next to each other, and conflicting types of values are posi-
tioned opposite each other, as shown in Fig. 2. The first
bipolar dimension is defined by the poles of openness to
change and conservation, while another dimension is
defined by the poles of self-transcendence and self-
enhancement. Accordingly, the first dimension sets self-
direction and stimulation versus conformity, security and
tradition, while the other dimension sets universalism and
benevolence versus achievement and power (Schwartz 1992;
Sverko et al. 2007). A key contribution of Schwartzs theory
is the completely novel and exhaustive way of explaining Fig. 2 Schwartzs values model (adapted from Schwartz 1992)
value content by considering motivational goals and specific
values, as well as their dynamic organizationwhich is this theory is not entirely appropriate and applicable in the
structured as a complete unit into which they are connected organizational context (Cable and Edwards 2004; De Clercq
(Feric 2009, p. 37). In addition, Schwartzs theory was 2007; Soyer et al. 2007).
established as a universal, stating that defined motivational
types are the samenot just for all the people, but for groups Mission-Based Taxonomy of Balanced Values
and organizations as well. Although this assumption of
Schwartz is well accepted, more and more authors suggest Two previously presented value models clearly indicate the
that the workings of Schwartzs theory is primarily appli- role and the importance of balanced values in business
cable to general use in society, and that in its original form practice, but this issue has not yet been exhausted.

123
Value Based Management
Admittedly, some papers have been published that deal
with specific aspects of this issue (Jordan and Streit 2001;
Yilmaz and Ergun 2008; Gregory et al. 2009; Colley et al.
2013), but in most of them the concept of balanced values
plays a less significant role only. An alternative view
regarding this question was proposed by Cardona and Rey
(2008) in a model called Management by missions (MBM),
with the idea of distributing the corporate mission to all
company levels. The basic line of reasoning of these
authors is that OV must be seen as being encompassed
within the concept of the mission (Cardona and Rey 2008,
p. 86), based on the anthropological foundations of the
company and not only under a psychosocial view. Thus,
OV should consider a taxonomy of values based on orga-
nizational mission fulfillment that are grouped into four
different categories. These four categories are seen as
representing different and sometimes opposed values that
are necessary to carry out the organizational mission, and
they are (Cardona and Rey 2008, p. 94):
(a) Business valuesrefer to the organizations busi-
ness and profit-making activity (e.g., perseverance,
efficiency, professionalism, results orientation),
(b) Relational valuespromote quality in interpersonal
relations (e.g., communication, team work, respect
for people),
(c) Development valuesaimed at differentiating and
continuously improving the company (e.g., innova-
tion, creativity, learning, continuous improvement),
(d) Contribution valuesaimed at doing more for stake-
holders than strictly required by the business relation-
ship (e.g., customer satisfaction, interest in people,
social responsibility).
Suitability of Balanced Value Taxonomies
in the Business Field
A fundamental challenge of the chosen research area is the
question whether the aforementioned models of OV do
represent the balance that is pursued in the contemporary
business field. The importance of analyzing this represen-
tativeness is explained by the fact that companies could
develop balance in ways different than those suggested by
(the familiar) models found in the literature (Cable and
Edwards 2004; De Clercq 2007; Soyer et al. 2007). That
could mean that companies would prefer to emphasize the
development of some categories of values and not pursue
the development of others. For example, considering the
CVF model, it could be argued that the category of rules,
despite of being a fundamental dimension of that model,
might be less emphasized than the category of innovation,
as innovations are much more important than the mainte-
nance of bureaucracy in contemporary business. A similar
adaptation would probably be done for the Schwartz values
model; here the category conservation might have to
give way to other categories of that model, such as self-
transcendence in business companies. Again when using
the mission-based taxonomy of balanced values companies
may choose to focus more on business values than
relational ones. This could mean that if companies are
fostering certain aspects (e.g., innovation or self-transcen-
dence) and relegating others (e.g., bureaucracy or conser-
vation), is means that they are having reservations about
the suitability of the aforementioned models of balanced
OV. There probably does exist a degree of mismatch
between the balance that is implicit in the literature models
and the balance that is pursued by companies in the busi-
ness field.
In order to arrive at some clarity about the applicability
of models mentioned in the previous paragraph, and
focusing our research on field level of analysis, we state
following research question:
How does literature taxonomies of balanced values
(psychosocial and mission-based) fit the values that
are actually pursued by companies in the business
field?
On the basis of previously mentioned theoretical cog-
nitions and a proposed model of balanced OV, we proceed
with our research by testing these models on a sample of
companies from business practice.
Methodology
Sample
The objective of this paper is to identify how proposed
models of OV fit the concept of balanced OV under con-
temporary business conditions. It is therefore meaningful
and necessary to check it on the research of OV of con-
temporary organizations. For this purpose, we examined
espoused OV of Fortune 100 companies. Espoused values
are the ones organizations say they hold (Hultman and
Gellermann 2002, p. 85) and they are articulated publicly
announced principles and values that the organization
claims to be trying to achieve (Schein 2010, p. 15).
Choice of the worlds largest companies as the frame-
work for this research seemed logical because of several
reasons. Namely, these companies are not only the largest,
but also in many ways the most successful in the world. As
such they represent various business benchmarks in their
industry fields and/or countries, including the question of
choosing and development of the OV. At the same time,
these companies usually make public their espoused val-
ues, making them easily available for use in the present
123

study. Due to their size and impact on the national econ-
omies of the countries in which they operate, the Fortune
100 companies are constantly and increasingly subject to
public interest. This assumption was crucial for the deci-
sion to select the 100 largest companies in the world as a
sample in this study.
Espoused OV of the largest companies in the world were
analyzed in June 2013, according to the Fortune Maga-
zines annual ranking of the worlds largest companies for
the year 2013. Among the 100 largest companies on that
list, 94 of them had publicly released their OV on the
official company website. These companies indicated 446
concrete (specific) OV, and all further results of our
research are related to these companies. Most companies
from the sample (in total 68 % of them) indicated 3, 4 or 5
values as its core values. Among the 94 companies that
have published their values on their official corporate
websites, only five of them indicated more than seven OV.
The average number of espoused OV per company was
4.74, with a standard deviation of 1.72.
Procedure
In determining which OV are most relevant for observed
companies, methods of content analysis, descriptive statistics,
and a classification method have been used. Content analysis
method has been used for collecting and processing data on
espoused OV of the worlds largest companies, because this is
the method commonly used for that purpose (Badovick and
Beatty 1987; Kabanoff and Daly 2002; Scott 2002; Van der
Wal and Huberts 2008; Khandelwal and Mohendra 2010). It
included parts of the official websites of researched companies
where OV were explicitly specified (in practice, these parts are
called our values, core values, our guiding principles, ferences between the score of each category (of values) and
shared values, values of corporate culture, corporate overall average score of all value categories. This way of
values, etc.). The analysis was a combination of qualitative
and quantitative content analysiscertain content (specific
OV) were recognized and annotated, but the total frequency of
each recognized value in all researched companies was also
considered. Each specific recognized value was categorized
separately and only clearly evident synonyms were placed in
the same category.
After determining OV of the researched companies, each
of the identified specific OV was classified into a specific
category of values, according to the all three observed values
models: (A) CVF model, (B) Schwartzs values model, and
(C) Mission-based model of OV. This has enabled the
comparison of three different value models, in order to
conclude which of these models is most appropriate for
researching balanced values in contemporary business
practice. To do this classification correctly, three expert
judges from three different countries, all dealing with the
OV phenomenon, made this classification (independent of
123
I. Malbasic et al.
one another). For the majority of specific values they have
unanimously agreed on their classification. However, several
specific values were not unanimously classified into cate-
gories according the three examined models and they were
left out from further analysis. To better visualize the dif-
ference between the three performed classifications of spe-
cific OV in studied organizations, the results of these
classifications are shown in Fig. 3.
Measure of (Im)balance
In order to measure to what extent existing literature models
of balanced values fit the practical requirements of the
business field, we have considered the measure of imbalance
of each model. The aforementioned content analysis and
classification of specific OV into a specific category of
values, according to all three of the observed values models,
were preconditions for measuring the imbalance of OV,
operationalized by the degree of imbalance. However,
measuring the degree of imbalance is a complicated task
since there are several different ways of operationalizing this
measure, each with its own merits and demerits. For this
study it seemed to be most appropriate to use a method
proposed and applied by Yilmaz and Ergun (2008). This
method is used to determine the imbalance of organizational
culture elements. Because of the conceptual similarities
between organizational culture and OV, we considered this
method, with some slight (not essential) changes, to be
appropriate for determining the imbalance of OV.
In their work, Yilmaz and Ergun operationalized the
degree of imbalance as the sum of the absolute values of
the pair-wise differences between the different categories
(of values). Following a similar method, we took the dif-
calculating the imbalance solves a problem that occurs
when, for example, the score of one category (of values) is
extremely high, and the score of another category (of
values) is extremely low. In addition, we divided the sum
of the absolute values of such calculated differences with
the overall average score of all value categories.3 Taking
all the above into account, we calculated the degree of
imbalance using the following equation:
P
jxi  xj
Degree of imbalance ;
x
3
This avoids the situation where, for example, an organization with
set of values {1, 3, 2, 2} has the same degree of imbalance as an
organization with set of values {4, 6, 5, 5}. Although the sum of the
absolute differences between each individual value score and the
overall average score of all values would be the same in both
examples, it is obvious that the latter organization has more balanced
values.
Value Based Management
Fig. 3 Organizational values
classification according to three
different value models
where xi is the score of a selected category of values, while
x is the overall average score of all value categories. The
resulting score represents the degree of imbalance; the
higher that score is, the greater is the degree of imbalance
of values in the observed organization. If all the value
categories of an organization match exactly then the degree
of imbalance is zerothe lowest theoretical score for
degree of imbalance.
Research Results
Having identified specific OV of examined companies, we
have classified each specific value into a specific category of
values according to three observed values models: (A) CVF
model, (B) Schwartzs values model, and (C) Mission-based
model of OV. In order to answer the proposed research
question and achieve the objective of the research, we have
calculated the degree of imbalance of values for each of the
three observed value models, and they were: (A) 2.206 for
CVF model, (B) 1.982 for Schwartzs values model, and
(C) 0.404 for Mission-based model of OV. Since a higher
degree score means a greater imbalance among values in the
observed companies, these results indicate that the Mission-
based model of OV is more representative of balance
between OV in contemporary business espoused values than
the other two models. That would mean that the Mission-
based model of OV could serve as the model to integrate the
psychosocial models into todays business practice.
Conclusion: Proposal of an Integrative Model
The research results presented in this paper indicate that
there is indeed a need for a new model of balanced OV,
which will better fit the actual values pursued by business.
In order to better understand these results, we have per-
formed an integration of the three models analyzed in this
study (Fig. 4). The integration of the three value models is
based on the classification results of concrete (specific) OV
in observed companies, as explained previously. Namely,
each specific recognized value was categorized according
to all three value models, also taking into account the
frequencies in which each specific value occurs.
This analysis can contribute to a more precise under-
standing of all previously considered value models. This
123

Fig. 4 A Mission-based model of organizational values integrated with two most frequently used values models
way, starting from the classification proposed by Cardona
and Rey (2008), and considering how they relate to other
models, we can conclude that there are two main criteria for
classification of OV that represent the balance that is pursued
in the business field. To classify these values we suggest
considering two main aspects: organizational orientation
toward the environment, and organizational attitude toward
change. In the first category, we can distinguish between self-
orientation and social orientation. Regarding attitude toward
change, we distinguish between stability and progress.
Taking into account the above criteria, we suggest a new
integrated way for viewing the balance of OV, taking as
starting point for further research on the phenomenon of
balanced OV in contemporary business practice. Namely,
considering the importance and significance of the CVF
model and Schwartzs values model in this field, we have
connected the new value model with these well-known
models. Based on this integration, we can finally precisely
explain and describe each value category of new Mission-
based model of OV.
(a) Business valuesprimarily self-oriented tending
toward stability, related to rules and goals due to
CVF model, and self-enhancement and conservation
tracking Schwartzs value model.
(b) Relational valuesprimarily socially oriented with a
tendency toward stability, related to support as
depicted by the CVF model, and self-transcendence
123
I. Malbasic et al.
(in exceptional cases also with conservation) due to
Schwartzs values model.
(c) Development valuesprimarily self-oriented with
tend toward progress, related to innovation and goals
due to CVF model, and openness to change and self-
enhancement due to Schwartzs values model.
(d) Contribution valuesprimarily socially oriented and
tending toward progress, related to support and
innovation according to the CVF model, and self-
transcendence according to Schwartzs values model.
Several limitations of this study must be taken into
consideration. First, the basis for the development of a new
model of OV, presented in this paper, was the initial values
classification offered by Cardona and Rey (2008). How-
ever, it should be emphasized that for classifying OV into
different categories a different approach could have been
chosen, which would probably result in a different way of
research, and perhaps it would influence the research
results as well. The second possible limitation is empirical
verification of the new model of OV. For that purpose, we
chose the 100 largest companies in the world, which are
specific for several reasons. Therefore, the applicability of
the proposed model in other types of organizations,
according to different criteria, is questionable. Finally, a
relevant limitation of this study relates to the area of
interest of the analysis, e.g., to the business field. It could
reasonably be argued that if a certain balance was identified
Value Based Management
in the business field, it does not necessarily mean that all
companies are pursuing this balance in their values. Indeed,
some companies can intentionally pursue a different bal-
ance of values than that of the business field, looking for
certain degree of differentiation, for example. For this
reason, it is important not to interpret our conclusions as a
specific recommendation for all companies.
To conclude, this paper points to some contributions
applicable in concrete business practice. Thus, the results
obtained in this paper will primarily be useful to all those
who consider OV in business, regardless whether they are
employees of an organization or external consultants
engaged by the organization to help improve its function-
ing. Namely, there is a number of patterns on how to De Clercq, S. (2007). Extending the Schwartz value theory for
manage OV and similarly there are also different principles
for developing OV. The purpose of this paper was not
merely to offer one more in a series of patterns, but to
present a model that has a scientific foundation and a clear
connection to contemporary business practice.
References
Argandona, A. (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 45(12), 1528.
Avallone, F., Farnese, M. L., Pepe, S., & Vecchione, M. (2010). The
work values questionnaire (WVQ): Revisiting Schwartzs por-
trait values questionnaire (PVQ) for work contexts. Bollettino di
Psicologia Applicata, 261262, 5976.
Badovick, G. J., & Beatty, S. E. (1987). Shared organizational values:
Measurement and impact upon strategic marketing implementa-
tion. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1),
1926.
Barrett, R. (1998). Liberating the corporate soul: Building a visionary
organization. Cambridge, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Batstone, D. (2003). Saving the corporate souland (who knows?)
maybe your own: eight principles for creating and preserving
wealth and well-being for you and your company without selling
out. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. (1996).
Competing values in organizations: Contextual influences and
structural consequences. Organization Science, 7(5), 557576.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and
supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822834.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing
organizational culture: Based on the competing values frame-
work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006).
Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cardona, P., & Rey, C. (2008). Management by missions. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohn, J. H. (1969). Corporate values and business efficiency.
Management Review, 58(6), 2026.
Colley, S. K., Lincolne, J., & Neal, A. (2013). An examination of the
relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values,
safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety Science, 51(1),
6976.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1991). Organizational vision and
visionary organizations. California Management Review, 34(1),
3052.
Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of
visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful
lessons in personal change. New York, NY: Fireside/Simon &
Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1997). The 7 habits of highly effective families:
Building a beautiful family culture in a turbulent world. New
York, NY: Golden Books.
Daft, R. L. (2010). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Dahlgaard, S. M. P., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Edgeman, R. L. (1998). Core
values: The precondition for business excellence. Total Quality
Management, 9(45), 5155.
assessing supplementary person-organization fit. PhD Thesis.
Universiteit Gent: Gent.
De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a
comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person-
organization fit. The Journal of Psychology, 142(3), 277302.
Devero, A. J. (2003). Corporate values: Stimulus for the bottom line.
Financial Executive, 19(3), 2023.
Dolan, S. L., & Altman, Y. (2012). Managing by values: The
leadership spirituality connection. People & Strategy Journal,
35(4), 2026.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value
congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654677.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers.
The Academy of Management Journal, 10(1), 5368.
Enz, C. A. (1988). The role of value congruity in intraorganizational
power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(2), 284304.
Feric, I. (2009). Vrijednosti i vrijednosni sustavi: psihologijski pristup
(Values and value systems: a psychological approachin
Croatian). Zagreb: Alinea.
Fitzgerald, G. A., & Desjardins, N. M. (2004). Organizational values
and their relation to organizational performance outcomes.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(3), 121145.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Boston: Pitman series in business and public policy,
Pitman.
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L.
(2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of
values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of
Business Research, 62(7), 673679.
Hitt, W. D. (1995). The learning organization: some reflections on
organizational renewal. Leadership and Organization Develop-
ment Journal, 16(8), 1725.
Hultman, K., & Gellermann, B. (2002). Balancing individual and
organizational values: Walking the tightrope to success. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Jaakson, K. (2009). Management by values: The analysis of
influencing aspects and its theoretical and practical implica-
tions. PhD Thesis. Tartu: University of Tartu.
Jaakson, K. (2010). Management by values: Are some values better
than others? Journal of Management Development, 29(9),
795806.
Jarvensivu, T. (2007). Values-driven management in strategic networks:
A case study of the influence of organizational values on
cooperation. PhD Thesis. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.
Johnson, K. M. (2009). The influence of organizational values on
profitability. PhD Thesis. Auburn: Auburn University.
Jordan, G. B., & Streit, L. D. (2001). Recognizing the competing
values in science and technology organizations: Implications for
evaluation. In P. Shapira, & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Proceedings
123

from the 2000 US-EU workshop on learning from science and
technology policy evaluation. Germany: Bad Herrenalb.
Kabanoff, B., & Daly, J. (2002). Espoused values of organisations.
Australian Journal of Management, 27, 89104.
Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value
congruence effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7),
11751198.
Kanter, R. M. (2011). How great companies think differently.
Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 6678.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard:
Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Khandelwal, K. A., & Mohendra, N. (2010). Espoused organizational
values, vision, and corporate social responsibility: Does it matter
to organizational members? Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision
Makers, 35(3), 1935.
Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the
short Schwartzs value survey. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 85(2), 170178.
Mele, D. (2003). Developing a corporate values statement: A case
study. In J. Wieland (Ed.), Standards and audits for ethics
management systems: The European perspective (pp. 191202).
Berlin: Springer.
Mele, D. (2005). Ethical education in accounting: Integrating rules,
values and virtues. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 97109.
Natale, S. M., & Sora, S. A. (2003). Values and their impact on the
virtual co-operative. International Journal of Co-operative
Management, 1(1), 915.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of
congruence: Relationships between value congruence and
employee attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6),
591623.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence:
Lessons from Americas best-run companies. New York, NY:
Harper Business.
Posner, B. Z. (2010). Another look at the impact of personal and
organizational values congruency. Journal of Business Ethics,
97(4), 535541.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1983). Organizational life cycles and
shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence.
Management Science, 29(1), 3351.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of
effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to
organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363377.
123
I. Malbasic et al.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rosenthal, J., & Masarech, M. A. (2003). High-performance cultures:
How values can drive business results. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 22(2), 318.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 165.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., &
Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the
theory of basic human values with a different method of
measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5),
519542.
Scott, E. D. (2002). Organizational moral values. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 12(1), 3355.
Sikavica, P., Bahtijarevic-Siber, F., & Poloski Vokic, N. (2008).
Temelji menadzmenta (Foundations of Managementin Cro-
atian). Zagreb: Skolska knjiga.
Soyer, A., Kabak, O ., & Asan, U. (2007). A fuzzy approach to value
and culture assessment and an application. International Journal
of Approximate Reasoning, 44(2), 182196.
Susanj, Z. (2005). Organizacijska klima i kultura: Konceptualizacija i
empirijsko istrazivanje (Organizational climate and culturein
Croatian). Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Sverko, B., Babarovic, T., & Sverko, I. (2007). Vrijednosti i zivotne
uloge u kontekstu odabira zanimanja i razvoja karijere (Values
and Life Roles in the context of career developmentin
Croatian). Suvremena psihologija, 10(2), 295320.
Van der Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. (2008). Value solidity in government
and business: Results of an empirical study on public and private
sector organizational values. The American Review of Public
Administration, 38(3), 264285.
Walter, K. (1995). Values statements that augment corporate success.
HRMagazine, 40(10), 8792.
Woodcock, M., & Francis, D. (1989). Clarifying organizational
values. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
Yilmaz, C., & Ergun, E. (2008). Organizational culture and firm
effectiveness: An examination of relative effects of culture traits
and the balanced culture hypothesis in an emerging economy.
Journal of World Business, 43(3), 290306.