4.6 Article

Espoused Values of the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For: Essential Themes and Implementation Practices

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS
Volume 173, Issue 1, Pages 69-88

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8

Keywords

Espoused values; corporate values; Great place to work (R); Organizational values

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of the values espoused by the 62 companies on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, identifying common theoretical frameworks and three overarching dimensions. The findings highlight the importance of relationships, self-regulation, desired outcomes, and learning and change in shaping values-based cultures within these companies.
This study identifies and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014-2018) appeared on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and offer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture. We then provide evidence for three underlying dimensions transcending all four models. They are values that guide relationships and self-regulation; values that describe desired outcomes and performance; and values that inform learning and change. Next, we present the results of a qualitative study describing how these companies put their values into practice. Finally, using publicly available information from the Great Place to Work (R) Institute, we show how the espoused values we identified relate to: (1) what employees report about their experiences and (2) company self-descriptions. Our findings highlight connections between leadership and values and they offer guidance to those seeking to understand keys to values-based cultures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available