The Core Characteristics of Values and Their Role in Organizational Decision-Making

Google’s aborted "Dragonfly" project, halted after staff protests over privacy violations, illustrates how internal conflicts can expose the gap between proclaimed values and actual practices, suggesting that values are more than slogans.

Luke, a hospital cleaner, chose to clean a patient’s room twice, not out of duty but to alleviate the family’s suffering, demonstrating that a clear purpose aligns personal work with the organization’s ultimate goal of reducing pain.

“I understand the father’s six‑month anguish; if cleaning again eases his burden, it is worthwhile.” – Barry Schwartz, < >

The author, drawing from these stories, identifies three essential traits of genuine values: they are proactive choices, involve equitable contribution, and require the unity of knowledge and action (知行合一).

Additional characteristics include that values are independent of results, are situational rather than permanent, and are infinite because choices are endless.

Proactive Choice : Distinguish between mandatory duties and choices that reflect personal values, looking for balanced contribution.

Equitable Contribution : Values entail trade‑offs, such as sacrificing leisure for health or growth, and prioritizing between competing goods like money versus well‑being.

Unity of Knowledge and Action : True values are validated by actions, not merely statements; they emerge from painful, conscious decisions.

The piece argues that KPIs can reveal an organization’s real values, often emphasizing sustainable business, and suggests integrating value alignment as a performance dimension.

It further explains that values are demonstrated at the moment of choice, regardless of outcomes, and that they evolve with each new decision, never being a permanent label.

Self‑reflection questions are offered to help individuals assess their own values, focusing on past dilemmas, conscious choices, and instances of proactive sacrifice.

Finally, the Agile Manifesto is cited as a template for articulating values, highlighting that values are a hierarchy shaped by historical software‑engineering failures.