(This is pretty fluff, it's just the kernel of an idea I've been mulling for a while that I thought I'd jot down and maybe poke at every so often over the next couple of years.)
Before we IPO, we need some core values we can put in our S-1 filing. Plus, according to Fortune magazine:
Eric Jacobson, a former executive who writes about management and leadership in Kansas City, MO, says “Without a statement, the company will lack soul.”
Presumably, we would prefer to have a soul?
I think most companies have very weak core values. They're often basically a rephrasing of these "values":
- Work hard!
- Have fun!
- Be nice! ...to the customer! ...to each other!
- Be open! (Startups Only)
I think one particular weakness of core values is that they tend to lack much ability to inform decisions. They don't discuss tradeoffs or how to balance opposing concerns. No one will ever behave differently because one of the company's core values is some rephrasing of "Work hard!".
For example, here are some of Asana's values:
Pragmatic Craftsmanship: Asanas take pride in their work and invest time to produce a quality outcome. However, we also take pride in continual progress and moving fast, so we make sure not to take craftsmanship too far before shipping.
I think this isn't useful in informing decisions -- it's advocating both pragmatism and craftsmanship! Of course you want both! I could never look to this value to make a decision.
Trust in Judgement over Rules & Incentives: Rather than rely on hard-and-fast rules that dictate behavior, we give ourselves the flexibility to apply judgement at the time a decision is being made. This allows us to incorporate more context about what is happening, enabled by the trust we share in the decision-making abilities of our teammates.
This is so close to being interesting. It sets up "Judgement" over "Rules & Incentives", which could be a huge core value. This would be a dramatic value if the subheader was something like "trust human judgement to overcome incentives" or some other text which implied or explicitly stated a belief that incentives either don't work or shouldn't be used to shape the behavior of systems. Instead, it just says "balance rules and judgement appropriately". Of course you want both! And "incentives", which is the interesting part, is totally lost -- incentives aren't hard-and-fast rules that dictate behavior.
I'd like to explore values which specifically advocate a choice between two alternatives instead.
Here are some example values which might, at least, be interesting:
Infinite Vanishing Point: Phacility will endure for a thousand years. Build a legacy with your actions.
This is the strongest value. Adhere to it over all other values.
Accountability over Correctness: It is more important to be accountable than correct. Learning from failure is as important as celebrating success.
This value is weaker than Infinite Vanishing Point. You may act without taking accountability if it is important to the company's long-term outcomes.
Do Not Commit Crimes: When representing Phacility, do not commit crimes.
We have no criminal liability if you do not commit any crimes.
This value is weaker than Accountability. You may commit crimes if you take accountability for them.
Be Subversive: The path to the best outcome may not be obvious or intended.
Find the best way forward by understanding the rules and incentives of systems and using them to your advantage, even if that path is unconventional.
This value is weaker than Do Not Commit Crimes. Work within the rules of systems to achieve outcomes, without breaking the rules or committing crimes.
...
I don't know that those are any good, they just sort of have a flavor to them that "Be Nice! Work Hard! Balance X and Y, where X and Y are both good!" lacks.
