It was fascinating to follow the online discussion on identity and values in business provoked and moderated by Harvard Business School's Emeritus Professor James Heskett.  The starting point for this most rewarding exchange of ideas was a question he threw open on the Internet for others to comment on whether they believe a company's culture indeed translates into verifiable results.  As he clarified, the idea of culture involves a set of values that organizations openly subscribe to and base their operations on.  This clarity about fundamental principles, in turn, makes it easier for employees to identify with what is being done at their workplace and contribute beyond their minimal obligations.  It is widely believed that a strong corporate culture, home-grown or achieved through customized executive programs, can set in motion a virtuous circle that ultimately benefits the bottom line.

The debate was started as a follow-up to a recent book by the Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof and his colleague Rachel Kranton titled Identity Economics, the crop of their collaboration for over a decade, in which they attempt to come to terms with how the sense of identity, at work and beyond, shapes decisions and – in consequence – results.  Enthusiastically received, the topic on the HBS website generated a multitude of views and observations from its readers, with practically none of them undermining the claim that values play a central part in influencing performance. Interestingly, the majority of voices reflected dissatisfaction with the direction modern corporations go into, promoting short-term solutions that are supposed to be transformed into immediate gains at the expense of greater stability and long-term vision, both rooted in well-defined values and culture.  Most comments, predominantly from top executives, but from anonymous employees too, provided specific evidence of how stronger identification between employees and their company does indeed make a difference. 

Importantly, to achieve values-based corporate culture, it is essential not to restrict it to high-flying empty talk with next to nothing to support it in practical terms, a reservation that customized executive programs are designed to take extremely seriously.  In lots of ways, achieving the level of commitment and identity which are likely to deliver improved corporate performance is a task for years and the recent economic climate might not really encourage such visionary spirit.  Quite the contrary, it drastically drains the reserves of patience on the part of stakeholders, propelling business leaders to guide their decisions towards smaller goals, rather than concepts as elusive as corporate values, identity or culture.  It might be unrealistic to try to totally counter massive market forces that place short-term gains before long-term stability based on robust identity with a company, but potential advantages of creating a potent corporate culture outweigh costs.  It was reassuring to conclude that everyone in the HBS debate agreed that investing in values, through customized executive programs or otherwise, is bound to pay off.