Thomas, Adèle; Doak, Robyn
A icle
The de elopmen o sha ed alues: Impac on employee
beha iou and on cus ome pe cep ion o se ice
Sou h A ican Jou nal o Business Managemen
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Uni e si y o S ellenbosch Business School (USB), Bell ille, Sou h A ica
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Thomas, Adèle; Doak, Robyn (2000) : The de elopmen o sha ed alues: Impac
on employee beha iou and on cus ome pe cep ion o se ice, Sou h A ican Jou nal o Business
Managemen , ISSN 2078-5976, A ican Online Scien i ic In o ma ion Sys ems (AOSIS), Cape Town,
Vol. 31, Iss. 1, pp. 17-30,
h ps://doi.o g/10.4102/sajbm. 31i1.731
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/218219
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
S.A .J.Bus.Manage.2000,31
(I)
17
The de elopmen
o
sha ed alues: impac
on
employee beha iou
and on cus ome pe cep ion
o
se ice
Adele
Thomas*
&
Robyn
Doak
G adua e School
o
Business Adminis a ion, Uni e si y
o
he Wi wa e s and.
P.
0.
Box 98. Wi s. 2050 Sou h A ica
[email p o ec ed]
[email p o ec ed]
Recei ed Feb ua y 2000
Di e si y
o
employees
in he wo k o ce is inc easingly becoming a ea u e
o
Sou h A ican business. Cu en deba e
in
Sou h A ica has conce ned he ma ginalisa ion
o
g oups
o
employees who, his o ically. ha e ne e heen pa
o
es ablish-
ing exis ing co po a e cul u es, and acco dingly,
i
has been a gued ha ensions exis
in
he wo kplace wi h a ela ed nega-
i e impac upon company pe o mance. The main aim
o
his explo a o y s udy was o in es iga e whe he he nego ia ed
alues sys em ope a ing a a Sou h A ican ma ke ing and communica ions company impac s on decision making. cul u al
in e ac ion and beha iou owa ds ellow employees and cus ome s. A second aim
o
he s udy was o in es iga e whe he
he lis
o
nego ia ed alues a he company could be clus e ed in o alues ca ego ies o possihle conside a ion by o he o -
ganisa ions.
The
indings
o
he s udy appea o indica e ha he nego ia ed alues sys em posi i ely impac s upon decision
making in he company and upon employee beha iou bo h owa ds ellow employees and owa ds cus ome s. The sys em
also acili a es in e ac ion and unde s anding amongs cul u ally di e se employees.
I
is
also possihle o clus e he alues
in o ou alues ca ego ies ha go e n beha iou
in
di e en a eas namely beha iou al. in e pe sonal. de elopmen al and
eam building alues.
I
is concluded ha he nego ia ed alues sys em migh be indica ed as an e ec i e ool o managing
employee di e si y in Sou h A ican companies. bo h o he in e nal wo king oge he
o
employees and o he p omo ion
o
e ec i e cus ome se ice.
• Au ho o whom co espondence should be add essed.
In oduc ion
Sou h A ican business
is
con on ed wi h he challenge
o
global compe i i eness.
The
Wo ld Compe i i ness Yea book
(IMO, 1999) indica es ha Sou h A ica lags
in
42"d place
among he 47 indus ialised coun ies unde e iew. Despi e
he applica ion
o
in e na ional managemen p inciples, many
companies a e s ill su e ing om p oblems
o
low p oduc -
i i y and p o i abili y, as well as low le els
o
us and
mo i a ion wi hin hei wo k o ces (Thomas, 1996; Thomas
& Robe shaw, 1999). Cu en labou legisla ion
in
he
coun y, and speci ically he ecen ly in oduced Employmen
Equi y Ac (Republic
o
Sou h A ica, 1998) will equi e
g ea e democ acy
in
he wo kplace and highe le els
o
pa icipa ion be ween managemen and he gene al wo k-
o ce. A he same ime, employmen equi y ini ia i es, as
equi ed by he
Employmen
Equi y Ac (Republic
o
Sou h
A ica, 1998), will inc easingly in oduce, pa icula ly a
senio le els, employees in o he wo k o ce, who ha e,
in
many cases, hus a been excluded om such posi ions.
I
can be expec ed ha he Sou h A ican wo kplace will
e idence g ea e di e si y han e e be o e
in
he o hcoming
yea s. While ini ia i es di ec ed a achie ing employmen
equi y may esul
in
di e si y
in
he wo k o ce, he g ea e
challenge exis s o lead and manage his di e si y o
compe i i e ad an age.
Li e a u e e iew
Di e si y
in
he wo kplace
In e na ionally,
Thomas
( I Q91), Mo ison ( 1992), Cox (1993)
and La ime ( 1994) ha e documen ed he bene i s o busi-
ness
o
employee di e si y ha may include: apping in o
skills no p e iously a ailable
in
a
company
cha ac e ised by
an homogeneous wo k o ce; enhancing company c ea i i y
and p oblem-sol ing; esponding quickly and e ec i ely o
di e se ma ke s and managing p oduc i e ela ionships wi h
di e se cus ome s, supplie s and dis ibu o s; p omo ing a
cul u e
o
inclusi i y. c i ical o a
commi men
o o al
quali y; enhancing eam pe o mance; and a ac ing and e-
aining he bes alen especially amongs hose ep esen ing
new consume ma ke s. Thomas & Ely ( 1996) also no e ha
di e si y encou ages di e en and c ea i e insigh s and s yles
in
app oaching he design
o
business p ocesses
and
asks.
in
he achie emen
o
goals.
in
he c ea ion
o
e ec i e eams
and
in
he communica ion
o
ideas. amongs o he s. Cox.
Lobel & McLeod ( 1991) no e he endency owa ds mo e co-
ope a i e choices amongs e hnically
Ji e se
g oups han
amongs all-Anglo g oups and McLeod & Lobel ( 1992)
epo ha e hnically he e ogeneous g oups p oduce highe
quali y ideas
in
b ains o ming ac i i ies han do homo-
geneous g oups, a inding suppo ed by Wa son. Kuma &
Michaelson ( 1993). Posi i e esul s ela ing op managemen
eam di e si y o co po a e pe o mance and s a egic
decision making ha e also been epo11ed by Ban el & Jackson
(1989), Wie sema & Ban el ( 1992) and Glick. Mille &
Hube (1993).
In e na ional esea ch. howe e . indica es ha when em-
ployees, no o me ly pa
o
es ablished o ganisa ional cul-
u es, a e in oduced in o such en i onmen s. p oblems may
occu . Tsui, Egan &
O'Reilly
( 1992) ound ha indi iduals
who a e acially and e hnically di e en om o he s
in
hei
wo k uni s end o be less psychologically commi ed o hei
o ganisa ions, less inclined o s ay wi h he o ganisa ion and
mo e likely o be absen . G eenhaus. Pa asu aman &
18
Wo mley (
1990)
no e ha blacks
in
he Uni ed S a es end
o
be
less sa is ied wi h hei ca ee s han whi es, and also pe -
cei e hemsel es
o
be
less accep ed
by
hei o ganisa ions
and
o
ha e less disc e ion han whi es
in
he same o ganisa-
ions. These hemes appea
o
unde lie a common pe cep ion
o
possible exclusion wi hin his o ically es ablished co po a e
cul u es
o
o ganisa ions.
Cul u e and alues
Acco ding o some Sou h A ican w i e s, he high le el
o
con lic
in
he Sou h A ican wo kplace
is
due o he ailu e
o
o ganisa ions
o
inco po a e black A ican alues in o co -
po a e cul u es. Mbigi (
1995)
belie es ha he concep
o
ubun u
is
undamen al
o
he ans o ma ion
o
managemen
in
Sou h A ica
o
de elop p oduc i e, compe i i e en e -
p ises. M hembu ( 1996) a gues ha many p oblems aced
by
businesses
in
Sou h A ica a e due
o
he ac ha hey
ail
o
ake cognisance
o
A ican' alues
in
hei co po a e cul u es.
'[T]hey end no o mobilise hei
ull
s eng h and
po en ial because hey a e
no
connec ed
o
he majo -
i y
o
he wo k o ce.
In
addi ion, many businesses
ail
o
build
on
he ull po en ial
o
he wo k o ce, he eby
p e en ing he de elopmen
o
a mo e au hen ic co -
po a e cul u e' (M hembu,
1996:
215).
This, hese w i e s a gue,
is,
in
pa , due
o
he ac he black
A ican alues ha e no been in eg a ed in o he wo kplace.
'Exis ing co po a e cul u es a e o eign
o
mos A ican
wo ke s' (M hembu,
1996:
216).
Koopman (1994) no es ha Sou h A ican business canno
be
success ul un il a se
o
common alues exis and
all
pa -
ies c ea e a common ision.
He
a gues ha whi e people and
black people di e undamen ally
in
hei basic alues.
'Whi es p ima ily ha e designed exclusi e ins i u ions
which gi e p imacy
o
he indi idual,
his
de elop-
men , sel ul illmen , which se e
o
os e libe al
democ acy. Blacks,
on
he o he hand, belie e ha
man
is
e y much pa
o
he socie al ab ic and see he
need o each indi idual
o
ind his place
in
a socie al
s uc u e,
o
play his pa icula ole
in
i
and,
o
a la ge
ex en , subo dina e himsel o he socie al needs.
In
o he wo ds,
he
desi es o ganisa ions o
be
inclusi e'
(Koopman,
1994:
41
).
Koopman ( 1994) and o he w i e s no ed abo e imply ha
c ea ing a s ong co po a e cul u e wi h common alues
is
possibly one such way
o
p omo ing inclusi i y, and ha un il
alue di e ences ha e been esol ed, one "canno expec
o
c ea e success ul o ganisa ions wi h common goals
o
which
all employees aspi e.
'We ha e o come o e ms wi h each o he s' di e -
ences, acknowledge hem
and
hen, h ough he dis-
co e y
o
ou own limi a ions, ealise common alues
o a new economic dispensa ion' (Koopman,
1994:
43).
Values, acco ding
o
T ompenaa s (1993) and
1-lo s ede
( 1997), a e in insic
o
di e ences
in
cul u es and de e mine
he way
in
which people
om
di e en cul u es will eac
o
si ua ions. T ompenaa s no es ha
'[i] busi~ess people
_wan
o
gain
an
unde s anding
o
and alleg1a~ce
o
he co po a e goals, policies, p od-
uc s o se ices whe e e hey a e doing business, hey
SA
.I.
Bus.Manage.2000.3
I(
I)
mus unde s and wha hose and o he aspec s
o
man-
agemen mean
in
di e en cul u es' (
1993:
3).
In
Sou h A ica, he his o y
o
he di e se e hnic cul u es
ha
exis
in
he coun y may cas doub
on
he exis ence
o
a
single na ional cul u e o na ional alue sys em.
Ra he .
when
na ional alues a e discussed
in
ela ion
o
T ompenaa s
( 1993)
and
Ho s ede ( 1997). a mul i ude
o
e hnic
alues
could,
i
is
sugges ed. exis
in
Sou h A ica
as
hypo hesised
by
Thomas & Bendixen ( 1997). I
wou
Id
be
expec ed.
i
one
ex apola es
om
Ho s ede's ( 1997) hesis ha
employees
would b ing such e hnic alues
o
bea
in
he wo kplace.
Schein ( 1992) p oposes ha o ganisa ional cul u e
can
be
unde s ood
by
iden i ying he isible a i ac s. espoused
al-
ues
and,
a
a deepe le el. he unde lying assump ions
p e a-
len
in
an
o ganisa ion o hose solu ions
o
p oblems
ha
ha e wo ked o e ime and ha ha e become
aken
o
g an ed.
I
is
only once he espoused alues become
basic
un-
de lying assump ions ha hey a e ansla ed in o
beha iou .
The e o e,
as
Ch is ie ( 1996) a gues.
i
is
u ile
o
an
o oani-
"
sa ion
o
gene a e a se
o
alues ha a e displayed
in
p omi-
nen places while managemen wai s
o
d ama ic
imp o emen s
in
p oduc i i y and p o i abili y.
The
alues
need
o
become pa
o
he basic assump ions
o
he
o ganisa-
ion be o e hey can b ing eal change and cohesion
o
he
cul u e
o
he o ganisa ion.
Pe e s & Wa e man ( 1984) and Lagan ( 1998) also
a gue
o
he c ea ion
o
a common se
o
alues and no e
ha
alues
mus become
he
d i ing philosophy behind beha iou
and
decision making wi hin he o ganisa ion.
In
his
way.
he
es-
poused alues a e epea edly applied
o
p oblems
and
when
hey a e seen
o
be
wo king. become. o apply
Schein's
( 1992) heo y, basic assump ions and pa
o
he
beha iou
in
o ganisa ions. Ko e & Heske ( 1992) and
Blancha d
&
O'Conno ( 1997) no e he powe ul ole ha alues
can
play
in
de eloping high pe o mance co po a e cul u es.
Thomas & Schon
ken
( I 998a: I 998b) no e he hi he o
lack
o
empi ical e idence
o
suppo he p oposi ions o
w i e s
who espouse he inco p a ion
o
black A ican
alues
in o
business. Howe e , he s udy
o
a Sou h A ican
company
ha ac i ely p omo es he es ablishmen
o
a nego ia ed
al-
ues
base amongs employees
is
o
in e es . Such a
s udy
could
cas some ligh
on
he deba e
as
o
whe he he issue
eally
is
he inco po a ion
o
black A ican (e hnic) alues
in o
busi·
ness o whe he . indeed. he salien poin
is
he
c ea ion
o
sha ed alues
by
all
ha p omo e he wo king oge he o
di·
e se employees
in
he achie emen
o
co po a e
objec i es.
Values-nego ia ion p ocess a G oup A ica
One such Sou h A ican managemen p ocess and
p ac ice
o
add ess he de elopmen
o
a uni ied. ye di e se
wo k o ce.
is
he nego ia ed alues sys em ope a i e
a
G oup
A ica
o
he Ama ulandlela. a ma ke ing and communica ions
com·
pany.
An
example
o
he di e si y
a
G oup A ica
is
ha
blacks (A ican, Colou ed and Indian) cons i u e
72%
o
em·
ployees
a
managemen le els and 33%
o
employees
a
Di ec o le el.2 The company specialises
in
ace- o- ace
com·
munica ion wi h de eloping ma ke s
in
he coun y,
in
he
es
o
A ica and, mo e ecen ly. in e na ionally. The
company
is
desc ibed
by
Boon (1997:
136)
as
·a happy,
p oduc i e.
exci ing, in e es ing
and
p o i able A ican3 business.
which
S.A .J.Bus.Managc.2000.31(
I)
has disca ded he ule books and,
in
so doing, has disco e ed
a uly powe ul A ican
way'.
I
is p oposed ha he nego-
ia ed alues p ocess p ac iced by G oup A ica could p esen
some impo an ideas and p inciples o conside a ion
by
managemen
in
Sou h A ica
i
i
is e ec i e
in
p omo ing he
wo king oge he
o
di e se employees o compe i i e ad-
an age.
The wo k o ce
o
G oup
A ica comp ises app oxima ely
230 ull- ime
employees
in
Sou h A ica ha has de eloped
in o
'a
wonde ul eam wi h a
" amily"
s uc u e ha sha es a
e y special
cul u e'
(Boon, 1997: 136). Fundamen al o his
cul u e and
' amily'
en i onmen is he nego ia ed alues sys-
em ha go e ns he
way
he company
is
un and he way
in
which i s employees a e managed.
'G oup
A ica belie es ha he wo kplace should
e lec pe sonal alues and be
in
ha mony wi h belie
sys ems.
The
wo kplace should be a ehicle h ough
and
in
which e e yone is able
o
achie e hei (sic)
pe sonal aspi a ions' (Boon, 1997: 136).
Assuming he alues a e cong uen wi h he ision and
mission
o
he o ganisa ion, hen he achie emen
o
pe sonal
goals, Boon ( I
Q97) belie es, will lead
o
he achie emen
o
he goals
o
he company.
G oup A ica does no adop a op-down app oach o alues
c ea ion. Values
' o m pa
o
indi idual
belie
sys ems and a e he e-
o e in eg al o
e e y
decision and s ep ha a pe son
makes.
They
a e
wha
we
ep esen as human beings.
To be accep ed by he communi y, alues ha e o be
sha ed and c ea ed by ha
communi y'
(Boon, 1997:
85).
Acco dingly, all employees a e in ol ed
in
he nego ia ion
o
a alues sys em o he company.
A b oad de ini ion
o
alues is used
in
he G oup A ica
alues c ea ion p ocess. Values a e aken o mean he ules by
which people go e n hei li es and include alues, p inciples
and beha iou s.
The
alues a e iden i ied a g oup o ums and
a e discussed, nego ia ed and de ined by he employees un il
a se
o
ag eed alues
is
iden i ied. This p ocess b ings o-
ge he he di e en alues
o
he di e se wo k o ce a G oup
A ica o c ea e a
common
se
o
alues ha all a e commi ed
o upholding.
This
p ocess has gene a ed a lis
o
35 alues o
which employees a
G oup
A ica subsc ibe.
The alues sys em is main ained by a g oup
o
elde s
o
in-
di iduals
who
a e elec ed by he employees o ensu e ha all
membe s
o
he
G oup
A ica communi y uphold he alues.
Elde s ha e
wo
majo
oles. The p ima y ole
is
o o e
guidance
(men o
he o ganisa ion and he indi iduals wi hin
i
and o ca e ully guide he indi iduals
in
e ms
o
how hey
should beha e).
The
seconda y ole
is
o ensu e ha employ-
ees ac
in
acco dance wi h he alues and o e ec discipline
i
necessa y.
The alues lis
is
cons an ly e alua ed, ques ioned and ede-
ined as he
company
aces new challenges, o as new em-
ployees
join
he company. The key d i e
o
his cons an
e alua ion
o
he alues is he new employee. Wi hin a ew
weeks
o
joining
G oup
A ica, he new ec ui s (amaKwe ha)
a e ga he ed oge he
in
an umhlangano (g oup discussion o-
um) wi h o he employees
o
G oup A ica. He e hey dis-
l'i
cuss he p inciples ha a e impo an o hem and.
in
he
p ocess, he exis ing alues lis
is
ee alua ed.
This ini ial alues nego ia ion expe ienced by amaKwe lw
sends an impo an message o new ec ui s. F om he s a
hey lea n ha hey ha e he powe o change he
company
and ha hey a e expec ed o speak hei minds and exp ess
hei opinions
in
an open o um. no ma e
who
is
p esen
o
wha
is
being discussed.
Boon4 a gues ha he alues sys em
'is
absolu ely in insic o he way we exis . These al-
ues a e hings ha we. as human beings. ha e decided
a e pe sonally impo an o us. We a e hen encou -
aged o explo e wha hose beha iou s, hose wo ds.
mean and he ea e we a e called on o be accoun able
o hem a e e y s age
o
s ep
o
ou
business. om
ec ui men o how we in e ac wi h
ou
clien s. E e y
single aspec
o
ou business
is
lead by hose alues
and beha iou s'
(Pe s.comm
..
1998).
Values play an impo an ole
in
ec ui men . app aisal and
p omo ion, employee de elopmen . discipline and decision
making a he company.
Boon ( 1997) also belie es ha he alues sys em
is
a alua-
ble ool o acili a e cul u al unde s anding be ween employ-
ees. This unde s anding
is
de eloped du ing alues discus-
sions
in
umhlanganos. Employees a e encou aged o exp ess
hei poin s
o
iew. and
in
his way. o he s a e exposed o al-
e na i e a i udes and de ini ions
o
wha
is
pe cei ed o be
igh o w ong. The alues sys em
is
he e o e also a mecha-
nism o c ea e
'a
eally powe ul eam spi i ' .5
Aims
o
he s udy
The o e all aim
o
he s udy was o e alua e whe he he
nego ia ed alues sys em a G oup A ica impac s on
employee beha iou . as mani es ed
in
decision making.
beha iou owa ds ellow employees and cus ome s. and
cul u al in e ac ion and unde s anding. A u he aim was o
explo e whe he he exis ing alues a G oup A ica could be
g ouped in o succinc alues ca ego ies.
The ollowing wo p oposi ions we e posi ed:
P oposi ion
1:
he nego ia ed alues sys em guides em-
ployee beha iou
Schein a gues ha he espoused alues
o
an o ganisa ion
'p edic well enough wha people will say
in
a a ie y
o
si ua ions. bu ... may be ou
o
line wi h wha hey
will ac ually do
in
si ua ions whe e hose alues
should be ope a ing' ( 1992:
21
).
I
is
only when he espoused alues become basic unde lying
assump ions ha hey di ec ly in luence beha iou . P o-
posi ion I aimed o es ablish whe he he espoused alues
o
G oup A ica ha e.
in
ac . become basic assump ions
o
he
company ha now a e mani es ed
in
employee beha iou
owa ds each o he and
in
cus ome se ice.
P oposi ion I was di ided in o a numbe
o
sub-p oposi-
ions, each in es iga ing beha iou
in
di e en a eas:
-The nego ia ed alues sys em guides employee beha iou
owa ds ellow employees:
-The nego ia ed alues sys em guides employee beha iou
owa ds cus ome s:
20
-The nego ia ed alues sys em acili a es unde s anding
and in e ac ion be ween di e en cul u al g oups;
The nego ia ed alues sys em guides decision making.
P oposi ion
2:
he nego ia ed alues can be clus e ed
in o ou alues ca ego ies
Pe e s & Wa e man (1984: 285) no e ha he alues lis s
o
success ul o ganisa ions a e 'na ow
in
scope, including jus a
ew alues'. The cu en alues lis a G oup A ica com-
p ises
35
alues, all
o
which,
i
can be a gued, employee~ a e
expec ed o unde s and. I he nego ia ed alues s~s e~
s
o
be a use ul ool o conside a ion by o he companies,
1
may
be mo e con enien
i
i
complied wi h he Pe e s & Wa e -
man ( 1984) ecommenda ion. Thus, he esea ch ela ing o
his p oposi ion explo ed whe he he cu en lis could be
simpli ied in o ca ego ies
o
alues.
Me hodology
Popula ion
Two popula ions we e included
in
he esea ch design -all
230 ull- ime employees
o
he company, and all cus ome s
se iced by G oup A ica. The inclusion
o
cus ome s
in
he
s udy was based on he p emise ha , as a se ice o ganisa ion,
cus ome s a e
in
di ec con ac wi h employees and ha he
ue es
o
employee alues being e idenced
in
beha iou
is
i
such alues a e pe cei ed by cus ome s.
Sample
The en i e popula ion
o
ull- ime employees was su eyed.
Pa
o
he analysis
o
he da a collec ed om employees in-
ol ed he use
o
mul i a ia e s a is ics. The minimum e-
qui emen o he use
o
hese echniques is a sample size
o
be ween wo and ou imes he numbe
o
da a poin s. As
he e a e 35 alues
in
he G oup A ica lis , and hese we e
he da a ha was o be subjec ed o mul i a ia e analysis, a
sample
o
a leas 70 was equi ed.
O
he 230 ull- ime
employees su eyed,
11
I employees esponded, hus sa is-
ying he sample size equi emen . The b eakdown
o
he
employee sample
is
shown
in
Table I.
Con enience sampling was applied o he cus ome g oup.
Leedy
(I
997: 204) de ines con enience sampling as a non-
p obabili y sampling me hod ha ' akes uni s as hey a i e
on he scene
o
as hey a e p esen ed o he esea che '. The
disad an age
o
his me hod
is
ha he esea che has li le
con ol o e whe he he sample is,
in
ac , ep esen a i e
o
he popula ion. Senio manage s a G oup A ica supplied a
lis
o
cus ome s who could be con ac ed o comple e he cus-
ome ques ionnai e. Each cus ome was con ac ed elephoni-
cally, hen axed a ques ionnai e o comple ion. As he da a
ecei ed om his sample was no subjec ed o mul i a ia e
s a is ics, he 22 e u ned ques ionnai es we e deemed su i-
cien o he pu poses
o
his s udy.
Ques ionnai e design and da a analysis
The employee ques ionnai e i s comp ised a se ies
o
ques-
ions o ga he he demog aphic de ails
o
he esponden s
ega ding age, sex, le el
o
educa ion, e hnic cul u e, leng h
o
se ice, geog aphic loca ion and occupa ional le el.
Two ques ions
in
he employee ques ionnai e equi ed ha
esponden s lis he h ee majo posi i e and nega i e ea u es
S.i ld.Bus.Manage.2<KIOJl(I).
Table
1 Demog aphic p o ile
o
employee sample
Dimension Desc ip ion Numbe o
Pe cen age
n:sponden s o
sa nph:
Gende
Male
<,7
<im,.
Female
44
40%
Age
20-29
35
.12'Yu
J0-39 36
32%
40--49
31
211%
50
plus 9
11%
Cul u al g oup Colou ed 2
2%
Indian
1%
So ho
12
11%
Whi e
A ikaans 3
3%
Whi e
English
30
27%
Xhosa
23
21%
Zulu
29
2(,%
O he
11
10%
Leng h
o
se ice
Less
han
2 yea s
23
21%
2-5
yea s
44
41)"/o
O e 5 yea s
44
40%
Geog aphic loca ion Gau eng
47
42%
K wazulu
Na al
29
26%
Wes e n Cape
13
12%
Eas e n Cape
12
11%
Tzaneen 9
8%
O he
1%
Le el
in
o ganisa ion Di ec o 4
4%
Manage
21
19%
? Employee
86
77%
Highes
le el
o
educa ion P ima y school 5
5%
High
school
32
29%
Ma ic
30
27%
Uni e si y
19
17%
Technicon
11
l(J"/o
O he
14
13%
To al
111
o
he alues sys em. Con en analysis was used o g oup
he
esponses ecei ed om hese ques ions.
A u he ques ion con ained a lis
o
s a emen s abou
he
alues sys em gene a ed om Boon's ( 1997) book,
in e i~W:
5
and discussions wi h employees. and obse a ions
o
ac 1
1
·
ies a G oup A ica. Employees we e asked o indica e
he
ex en
o
hei ag eemen wi h each s a emen . The
objec~i ~
was o de e mine how employees iewed he sys em
and
1 i
did appea o in luence beha iou . The esponses
we e
g ouped in o wo equency ables. one o he posi i e
ea-
u es and one o he nega i e. A op wo box and bo om
wo
box sco e was also calcula ed o de e mine he o al
ag ee·
men o
disag eemen wi h each s a emen .
The opening ques ions
o
he cus ome ques ionnai e
o-
. s
cused upon he easons
o
esponden s o using he
se ice
o
G oup A ica, and why hey hough he company
was
unique. The objec i e was o es ablish whe he o
no

s.M .J.Bus Managc.2000.31
(I)
cus ome s spon aneously e e ed o he alues sys em. o
o
any
o
he speci ic alues
o
G oup A ica. The da a was ana-
lysed
using con en analysis.
The
inal ques ion con ained
in
bo h he employee and cus-
ome ques ionnai es lis ed he 35 alues
o
G oup A ica and
asked esponden s
o
a e he beha iou
o
G oup A ica em-
ployees
on
a i e-poin scale wi h ega d
o
hese alues. The
da a
was analysed
in
a numbe
o
ways. Fi s he da a
om
he
employee ques ionnai e was analysed
in
conjunc ion
wi h
he
demog aphic da a o asce ain whe he he e we e any sig-
ni ican di e ences
in
he a ings ac oss demog aphic g oups.
The
K uskal-Wallis es was used o his pu pose
as
he da a
was
o dinal
in
na u e and he e we e mo e han
wo
se s
o
da a
o
be
compa ed. The a ing da a
om
bo h ques ionnai es
was
anked acco ding
o
he mean sco e o each alue. and
hen
he wo anked da a se s we e compa ed. A Mann-Whi -
ney
U Tes was hen conduc ed on he wo se s
o
da a
o
de e mine i he e we e signi ican di e ences
in
he a ings
ac oss he wo samples.
The
inal analysis on he da a om his ques ion was a p in-
ciple componen s analysis (PCA) which was
un
on
he em-
ployee da a only. This was unde aken
o
de e mine whe he
he
lis
o
35 alues could
be
condensed in o ca ego ies
o
alues ha could mak : applica ion easie elsewhe e.
As
da a
was
o dinal
in
na u e.
i
had o be con e ed
o
in e al da a
in
o de
o
apply he PCA. This was unde aken
by
using co e-
spondence analysis as ecommended
by
Bendixen & Sandle
( 1995). The escaled da a alues we e hen subs i u ed
o
he
old
ones
in
he da abase and he
PCA
was
un.
The ini ial
un
indica ed ha a ou - ac o solu ion was p e e able. The sec-
ond
un
was analysed o de e mine which alues loaded on o
each
ac o , using a cu o alue
o
0.5
as
ecommended
by
Sha ma ( 1996
).
C onbach
's
Coe icien Alpha was also calcu-
la ed
o
es he eliabili y
o
each
o
he ac o s
o
ensu e ha
none
o
he alues should
be
excluded o imp o e he esul .
De ails
o
he employee and cus ome ques ionnai es can
be
ound
in
Doak ( 1998).
Limi a ions
-
The
p esen s udy did no measu e he e ec
o
he nego i-
a ed alues sys em on employee sa is ac ion and p oduc-
i i y based on indica o s ela ing
o
hese wo
ac~o s
such
as
absen eeism. s a u no e e ce e a (Meglmo,
Ra lin & Adkins. 1989: Pulakos. Opple , Whi e &
Bo -
man. 1989: G eenhaus e al, 1990; Tsui e al, 1992;
Ve kuy cn.
De
Jong & Masson, 1993; Bochne & ~es-
ke h. 1994: Le kowi z. I 994: Smi h, Smi h. Ohan. Sims,
Bannon & Scully, 1994: Moun , Hazucha. Hol &
s,
sma. 1995: Simons. J 995). Ideally, indica o s such
as
l;ose used
in
he abo e s udies should
be
measu ed
on
a
longi udinal basis. .
-English was he language medium used
in
he ques ion-
nai es and.
as
such. could ha e in olun a ily excluded em-
ployees (whose i s language
is
no English)
om
he
s udy o in luenced hei esponses. .
While a emp s we e made
o
con ol
o
esea che
~ias,
such con amina ion could ha e occu ed
in
he ques ion-
nai e design and in e p e a ion
o
esul s.
-Al hough
~1
pilo s udy was conduc ed. he eliabili ~ and
alidi y
o
he esea ch ins umen s was
no
conclusi ely
21
es ablished.
-Senio membe s
o
(i oup A ica who p o ided he lis
o
cus ome s
o
be
con ac ed de e mined he cus ome sam
pie. Such con enience sampling could ha e in luenced
he ep esen a i e na u e
o
he sample and led
o
he e-
la ed possibili y
o
sampling bias.
-The alues s a ed
in
he
(_j oup
A ica alues lis ha e
clea ly de ined meanings ha ha e been de ined
by
he
employees du ing he alues-nego ia ion p ocess. These
de ini ions we e
no
p o ided
o
nslome s
in
he sample
and acco dingly. cus ome unde s anding
o
he wo ds
may di e
o
ha
o
employees. hus equi ing cau ion
in
he compa ison
o
esponses be ween employees and cus-
ome s.
Resul s
Nego ia ed alues sys em guides employee beha iou -
P oposi ion 1
The i s sub-p oposi ion add esses beha iou owa ds
ol-
low
employees.
The esponses displayed
in
Table 2 indica e ha he alues
sys em impac s.
o
some ex en .
on
employee beha iou .
Table 2 Posi i e ea u es
o
he alues sys em
Fea u e
In luences beha iou
B ings people logclhc
lo
huild
1c;11m n ~
A ec s ela ionships wilhin he
wo k
n i on-
menl
Helps people
o
g ow
Helps unde s and
di li.: cn
cullla cs
Imp o es pe o mance
Enhances
he
wo king
cm
i onmcn
C ea es a sha ed i,ion
Imp o es communica ion
Imp o es con lic csolulion
O he
To al
N11111hc
ol
n..:,p,Hbcs*
54
14
27
l i
11
'I
X
7
5
4
7
IX2
Pcn.:c:n agc
o
n:,pon,c"
2').7
11
/11
IX
X",;,
14
'l'Y.,
X_X'~,
(d,.~~I
-l. )l~,{,
-l
.
..J"·u
1
x41.;,
2.
71
!~.
,
)Ill
-·-
IJ
3 X
111
11
IOIJ
• Responses ecei ed.
no
numhe
o
c,pondenb
"ho
answocd
lhc ques ion
Table 3 Nega i e ea u es o he alues sys em
Fea u e
Is
easily manipula ed
The sys em
is
cs ic i, c
Too
many
g ey
a e;L,
Time consuming
Di licul
o
balance ,1
i h
husines, p ac iccs
Too
many
alues
O he
To al
'.unihc ol
Rc,.,,p
llhC
*
X4
I
'I
'I
5
4
·'
X
I , '
·'-
Pc ..:cn agc ,
)
Rc,p,,1hc,
l3.h"u
1..J.-l
4
~o
6.X0u
3.X
1
}u
3
,,.~,~
1
"'o
-.'J
II
h.
l4
~o
lll l
•
Numbe
o
espon,l',. no lllllll~c o
l's ondenb
ho ,ms,w c·d
he·
ques u,n
22
F om Table 3 he nega i e ea u es
o
he alues sys em, as
iden i ied by esponden s. a e no ed.
An a ea
o
conce n
is
he la ge pe cen age
o
nega i e e-
sponses ega ding he manipula ion
o
he sys em (63.6%). A
close inspec ion
o
hese esponses indica ed ha hey e-
e ed speci ically o he alue ·ca e·. This may be explained
b he ac ha he alue
·ca e'
is
used
in
he pe o mance
11',,,h/anganos (whe e he pe o mance
o
an employee
is
e al-
ua ed by he g oup).
In
hese umh/anganos. he alue
·ca e'
is
s essed o he pe son being app aised.
I
his umh/angano
is
being used o counselling
o
disciplina y pu poses. employ-
ees may be suspicious
o
his alue.
F om Table 4
i
can be seen ha employees espond a ou -
ably o o he aspec s
o
he alues sys em.
'>.· I .I lus Managc.20(NI.Jl(I}
Howe e . as can be seen om Tahle 4. he e a e no iceable
excep ions. namely. he
wo
s a emen s
ega ding he
elde s:
'The
elde s ha e eally helped me hen I ha e had a
p ob-
lem'
and
'I
is
eally nice o he able o ake my p oblems
o
he elde s ins ead
o
o
my
hoss ·. l·o ho h
o
hese s a emen s
he modal ca ego y
is
he
column
·nei he
ag ee no disag ee'.
This indica es
ambi alence
owa ds
he use
o
he eld; s
in
p oblem sol ing o a lack
o
unde s anding
as o he
ac ual
ole
o
he elde s
in
such cases.
In
1:on as . he guidance o
he elde s and hei
men o ing
ole
i
clea ly unde s ood.
as
can be seen om he s ong
ag eemen
(
79
3°
o} wi h he s a e-
men
·1
see he elde s· ole as
one
o
guidance and
men o -
ing'.
O e all. he e appea s o be s ong ag eemen wi h all he
posi i e s a emen s. as can be seen om he highligh ed mo-
dal ca ego ies. and he op wo box sco es column o each
s a emen . This
is
pa icula ly e iden
in
he a eas
o
a i ude
owa ds he company. en husiasm and
commi men
o he
company. he p omo ion
o
cul u al unde s anding. a sense
o
belonging. p oblem sol ing, pe sonal de elopmen . and be-
ha iou owa ds people om di e en backg ounds.
The
analysis
o
he nega i e
s a emen s
no ed
in
Table 5
is
suppo i e
o
indings no ed
in
Tahle 3.
Th ee s a emen s e e o he possible manipula ion o
he
alues sys em:
'People
don'
eally ollow
o
belie e
in
he alues·:
'People
don'
eally ake
I
se iously·:
and
'People
jus
pay lip se ice o
i .
As can be seen om
Tahle
5. o e all. esponden s end
o
disag ee wi h hese nega i e s a emen s. wi h some excep-
ions.
The
i s
o
hese s :1 cmenh. ·
1
is
e y
ime
Table 4 Values sys em desc ip ions: posi i e s a emen s
S a emen S ong
I}
Ag ee
Nei he
ag ~<
1)1',agn:c.:
. nngl~
lop
l 1n
ag ee no di~ag l'l' d1,ag ~i:
ho,
s~Pn:
I
has helped me unde s and people om
dille en
53
, I
~
(I
111-'
cul u es be e
47.75%
45.95~0 4
5°.;.
I 8
11
0
(1
11
c,
1)J.7·~·j,
11
has
changed
he wa~ I
heha e
owa ds
people om
42
56 i
«,
(1 ')Ii
di c cm
hackg ounds
3i.84~.
50.45%
6 31°;,
~
.41° n
()II
II
!111.3%
I
1s
pa
o ha
makes
(, nup
A ica
special
71
35
(·
1(17
64.86%
3153% 0.9",·
(I°
I,
~
711
"
')C,.4
1
~'0
I helps
me
ma~e decisions a wo k
3~
49 1 ..
l)
IC
34.23%
44.14%
12.61°,. X I I 0o ( I
qo
1,
7H.4°1;,
I
ha,e
dc dopcd
as a esul
o
being in ol ed in he
3l<
6Z
x I 100
'aluc
~~
, e n 34.23~0
55.86%
7.~
I u n :
70
,.
(
1°
eo
')0.1%
The
elde s ha e eali)
helped
me
when
I
ha e
had a I-; 36 43 l!l
'.'3
p ohlcm I 532~;,
32.43%
38.74°1.,
9.01°0
-l
'.'"
II
-'7.!I~·.
I
is eally nice
o
he ahle
10
ake
m)
p oblems
o
he I~ 2h 37
Y)
I:
"''
elde s ins ead
o
m
hos,
13.5 l~o
23.42%
33.33%
<>
x2°,"
q
()!"1•
37.0%
The
uml,/anganos a c use ul o
sol mg
p oblems
a
53
49
IO:!
O ~
47.75%
44.14%
45%
2.7
11 11
(
(}
0111 ')1.9%
I eel I
can
speak
up
a
am
11mhlangano. no
ma e
51
44 7 7 2
')'-
who
is
he e
45.95%
39.64%
6.31%
(1
31
'~'~l
I
xuu
H:=;;.,.•~10
I eally
helped
me
i in
a
G oup
A ica
41
5(,
IO
i ')7
36.94°10
50.45%
901%
2 71
~'0
0 9°·,, !17.-'%
I augh
me
o
s and
up o
wha
I helie e in 34
59
12
~
')3
30.63%
53.15%
10.81" .
.,
4.'.'
11
o
(,
9°
0 HJ.')'%
I
see
he
elde s ole as
one
o
guidance
and
men o ing
34 54
I(,
~
!l!I
30.63%
48.65%
14
41'~,
..
4.'.'u
u I X
0
1,
79.J0
,;,
I
gi es
me
a sense
o
he
longing
and
loyal y
40
(13
5 2
1113
36.04%
5<,.76% 4.5~o
(l.9
1
~,;,
I
.X''.11
')2.81%
I
makes
me
eel
en husias ic.
commi ed
and
48
58 2 2 1(1(,
dedica ed
o
G oup
A ica
43.24%
52.25%
1.8%
0.9
11
10
I
.X
0 n
,,:=;;5·~.
I c ea es a powe ul
eam
spi i
53
48
(1
2 2
IOI
47.75%
43.24%
5.41'}o
I
.X",o
I X
0·o 1
J
1. l'Yo
I eel hal I
can
eally
change
he o ganisa ion h ough
25
56
17
10
!II
he alue~
sys em
22.52%
50.45%
15.32'~.
l)_(JIHo
~
71~ 0 73. l'}o
S.A .J.Bus.Managc.2000.31(
I)
Table 5 Values sys em desc ip ions: nega i e s a emen s
S a emen S ongly Ag ee
ag ee
I
is
e y ime consuming
21
28
18.92% 25.23%
I ind
i
a ha~slc 5
15
4.5% 13.51%
People don" eally ollow o
bdie c
in he alues
10
31
9.01% 27.93%
I
ind
he elde s ends o in e e e in he way
11
ike 7 II
o
do
hings 6.31% 9.91%
I
do
no call) unde s and i 2 6
1.8% 5.41%
I
do
no
ag ee wi h all he alues 6
17
5.41% 15.32%
I
ind
he counseling pa
o
he alues sys em 2 8
in imida ing 1.8% 7.21%
People don' eally ake i se iously 6 38
5.41%
34.23%
People jus pay lip se ice o
i
8 40
7.21%
34.04%
consuming'
is
ag eed
o
by
44.1%
o
esponden s as opposed
o he
40.5%
who
disag ee. Howe e .
in
con as o his posi-
ion. he e
is
s ong
disag eemen
wi h he s a emen
'I
ind
i
a hassle·. He e.
68.5%
o
he esponden s disag ee wi h his
sen imen . A
possible
explana ion
o
his seeming con adic-
ion
is
ha
employees
may
ind he alues-nego ia ion p oc-
ess ime
consuming.
bu
hey
appea
o be p epa ed o spend
he ime on
i .
The las
wo
s a emen s
in
Table 5,
'People
don'
eally ake
i
se iously' and · People
jus
pay lip se ice o i '. a e clea ly
bi-modal. indica ing
disag eemen
among employees as o
how dedica ed people a e
owa ds
he alues sys em. This
is
suppo i e
o
he indings no ed
in
Table 3. Howe e . om
he sco es
appea ing
in
summa y
columns
in
Table 5. ( he op
wo and bo om
wo
box sco es).
i
can be no ed ha a sligh ly
highe
pe cen age
o
employees
disag ee wi h hese wo s a e-
men ~.
The o e all esul s
p esen ed
in
Tables 4 & 5 indica e ha
employees a e posi i e abou he ole
o
he alues sys em
in
guiding
beha iou
a
wo k
and indica e ha
i
is
e ec i e
in
his ega d.
Employees
we e
equi ed o a e he beha iou
o
hei col-
leagues
in
e ms
o
he alues. A mean sco e ou
o
i e was
calcula ed o each alue and he alues we e hen anked.
O e all. he sco es o he alues we e high. anging om
4.37 down o a lowes
sco e
o 3.75
(shown
in
Table 6). This
indica es ha he alues.
acco ding
o employees. a e no icea-
ble
in
he
beha iou
o
hei
colleagues. Once again his
is
suppo i e
o
he p oposi ion ha he alues guide beha iou
owa ds ellow
employees.
A inal poin o be
made
wi h ega d o his sub-p oposi ion
is
ha all
employees
do
no ag ee abou he ex en o which
he alues a e ansla ed in o beha iou . The e a e signi ican
di e ences
in
he a
in
us
o
mos
o
he alues ac oss demo-
g aphic ca ego ies. as he K uskal-Wallis es esul s indica es
(Table 7). The alues
whe e
he e a e no signi ican di e -
ences ac oss
demog aphic
g oups a e highligh ed
in
bold.
2.,
Nei he ag ee Oisag ee S ongly Top wo Bo om wo
no disag ee disag ee hm; sco e
ho,
,co e
17
2:i
20
4'>
4.;;
15.32%
22.52'Yo
llUl2'X,
44.1%
40
51
!l ,
15
45
31
20 7(,
13.51%
40.54%
27.93% 18.0% (,8.5%
18
40
12
41
52
16.22%
36.04%
10.81%
36.9%
4(,.8%
24 40 29
I!!
(,9
21.62% 3(,.04%
26
I.V%
16
2'%
<,2.2°/c,
9 52
42
x
'>4
8.11% 46.85%
37.8..J
1~1
11
7."")0'
-" 114.7%
7 39 42 23
111
6.31%
35
14"·;,
37.84%
20.7°1;1
73.0%
29
51
21
10
72
26.13% 45.95% I
X.92"'o
9.0
1
!1i1
(,4.9%
16
311
1.1
44
50
14.41%
34.23%
11.
71
1
~,,
39.6%
45.0%
13
40
I('
48 50
11.71%
34.04%
9.0 I
0
,,
4).2'}o
45.0%
These a e:
'we
a e
o
A ica·: ·pe sonal":
·non-disc imina-
o y':
'in eg i y':
and
·accep ance
o
cons uc i e c i icism·.
All
o
hese alues. wi h he excep ion
o ·
pe sonal".
appea
in
ei he he op
o
bo om en g oups (
Table
6
l.
The
ac ha
'pe sonal'
does no
appea
only means ha
employees
a e
in
ag eemen ha
i
lies elsewhe e
in
he anking and ha all
em-
ployees ag ee as o he a ing
o
he alue.
In
conclusion.
i
is
belie ed ha he da a suppo s he p op-
osi ion ha he nego ia ed alues
s~
s em
guides
beha iou
owa ds ellow employees. Howe e . his
is
a quali ied con-
clusion as he e a e a eas
whe e
ese a ions a e no ed:
-The e
is
a s ong eeling ha he sys em
is
manipula ed
by
some employees:
Some
o
he alues a e mo e no iceable
in
beha iou
han
o he s:
-The ole
o
he elde s
in
en o cing he alues
sys em
is
un-
clea o many
em loyees:
and
Employees om di e en
demog a hic
g oups
disag ee
on he ex en o which he alues a e ansla ed in o be-
ha iou .
The
second
sub-p oposi ion
in es iga es
employee
beha -
iou owa ds cus ome s. Once again.
i
appea s ha he alues
sys em
is
e ec i e
in
his ega d.
Al hough he e a e no di ec e e ences o any
o
he alues
in
he esponses ecei ed om cus ome s (
shown
in
Tables
8
and 9). analysis
o
he ele an s a emen s indica es ha he
ollowing alues a e spon aneously alluded o by cus ome s:
-
·we
a e
o
A ica·:
'Na u al d i e o d aw close o
o he
cul u es·:
and
-'En husiasm/passiona e·.
I
is
in e ed. he e o e. ha cus ome s no ice hese h ee
alues
in
he beha iou
o
G oup
A ica employees.
As
wi h
he
esul s
om
he
emplo)
cc
ques ionnai e.
he
mean
sco e
o
ea..:h
o
he
alues
1 as
uscd
o
ank
he
i lues
o
highligh
hose
ha
we e
nw c
no
in:ahlc
han
o he s.
O c al
I.
he
mean
sco es
ccei cd
om
.:us omc s
11
en:
highe
han
lwsc
ccci1
cd
om
employces.
a11g111g
om
. .98
o
- .65
as
sccn
in
Figu c
I.
TablE 6 Mean sco e o a ing o alues
by
employees
Value
W c a c
o
A ica
W c lead
he
a,
P ide
in
ha
,,c
o
Ca e
Respec
Team d i,cn
We
as
a
eam
a c
knds
Pa i,ipa i, c managemen /leade ship
Em a hy
Fun
l'n husiasm/ assi,llla e
Lis en
and
hea
Villingncss
o
sha e
Lo)al y
We
do
i
Fai ness
E ec i e
I loncs )
Manne s
O cnness
T us
Na u al d i e
o
d aw close o o he cul u es
Willing
o
delega e
o
enahle o he s
o
g ow
P o-ac i e
P o essionalism and dedica ion
o
ask
Unde s anding/good in e ac ion
Pe sonal
Fai h
in
ou sel es and each o he 's ahili ies
Mcancm-
pln)
cc
a ing
,U7
4.30
426
4.26
-L~O
4.19
4
18
4
17
4.10
4.10
4
()<)
4.09
4 08
4.07
4.06
4.00
3.99
3.99
3 l)I)
3.99
3.98
3.98
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.93
3.93
Recognise
achk,cmen
3.91
D)
namic 3.90
D i e
o
pe sonal de elopmen 3.89
Accep ance
o
cons uc i e c i icism 3.89
Ahle
o
oile cons uc i e c i icism 3.86
In eg i y 3.85
Sel disciplined 3.80
E icien
3.
76
Accep only
he
highes s anda ds. acco ding o g oup s anda ds
3.
76
Non-disc imina o y
3.
75
I
is
possible ha he eason o his inding
is
ha cus om-
e s a e unawa e
o
he alues sys em and he e o e do no
judge G oup A ica employees
by
he alues.
In
con as , em-
ployees a e awa e
o
he alues and expec o he s o beha e
in
acco dance wi h hem. Employees may he e o e
be
mo e
c i ical
in
hei assessmen .
When he op en ankings om he employee and cus ome
samples (Table I 0) a e compa ed,
i
can
be
seen ha he e a e
ou alues ha ank
in
he op en
o
bo h he cus ome and
he employee samples (highligh ed
in
bold).
/1
11 IJ·.
1-.Jn;i~,·
:111111
,Ill)
Table
11
indi<.:a cs
he bol om
lL'11
,
,illlL:,
"'
1;111~L·d
hy
em-
ployees and cus ome s.
Once again. he e
is
.ign.:emen
;inm,
hil
Ii
s;1111plcs
as
o
which alues a c leas
no i<.:cablc
111
heh.i,
1011
I highlighh:d
in
bold).
I
is
clea ha hese a c
he,
,il11e,
h,
. L'
he
k,h
110
•
iceable
in
he beha iou o < i oup A l ic.
L'lnpl<l
cc,.
I he op en and bo om en lis (
1. hk,
IO
&
11)
a e
compa ed.
i
can
be
seen ha he e
1,
ck.
di,.1c! cc111en
on
wo
o
he alues be ween he wo
,ample,
I
he
i s
o
hese
is
he alue ·we lead he wa: · I
h"
, , luc .inks
a,
numbe
h ee
on
he employee lis (Table
10).
hu
" hl'
en h
wo s
anked
on
he cus ome lis
(L hlc
I I). I
Ii
"
e111plm
CL',
be-
lie e ha hey do.
in
ac . lead
hL·
"a .
hu cu, ome s
appea
o eel di e en ly abou his.
llo c,e .
i
11111s
he
11<1 ed
ha
he wo samples may
be
e alua i11:-c
his pa icula
,·, lue
di -
e en ly. Fo example. cmployccs
111a:
c,
alua c
.1dhe c11cc
o
his alue
in
e ms
o
in e nal ac o s
in
he o ganisa ion
such
as he alues sys em o he way hey a c ea ed. Cu, ome s.
on
he o he hand. will mos likel: iew his alue
in
e ms
o
he se ices p o ided
by
he com pan: o hem.
The second alue whe e he e
is
s onc! disag eemen
be-
ween he wo samples
is
ha
o
·non-dis<.: imina ion·.
This
alue anks i s
on
he cus ome I
is
( ah
le
IO)
hu
1s
anked
in
he bo om en lis
by
cmplo:
l'Cs
( .1bk I I
J.
Ag, in.
he
di ~
e ence could be explained
by
pc <.:cp ions
I
c1n
be
a gued
ha G oup A ica
is
one
o
he
ew
o ganisa ions
in
Sou h
A -
ica ha
is
ep esen a i e
o
Sou h
i
ic n popula ion
demo-
g aphics. F om a cus ome pc spcc i,c. his
is
p obahl:
e y
di e en o ha which hey encoun e
in
hei
mm
o ganisa-
ions, hence he high sco e
on
his
i e111.
Employees.
on
he
o he hand, may possibly assess his alue
o111
an
in e nal
pe spec i e
in
e ms
o
hei beha iou owa ds one ano he
and he e o e acco d
i
a lowe sco e.
The esul s
o hc
Mann-Whi ney! I- es (Table
12)
ha
as
conduc ed
on
he employee and cus ome ankings indica e
ha he e a e nine alues whe e he e
is
no
signi ic1n
di e -
ence be ween he a e age a ings
o111
he o samplcs (
high-
ligh ed
in
bold
in
he able). namely: · cspc<.: ':
'
illing
o
delega e o enable o he s o g ow·: ·p o-ac i e·: ·ca e': ·sel
disciplined': 'pa icipa i e
111anagcmc11
leade ship·. ·
ecog-
nise achie emen ':
'we
lead he
a:·:
and ·openness·.
In
conclusion.
i
appea s ha he da a docs suppo
he
sub-
p oposi ion ha he alues sys em guides employee
beha -
iou owa ds cus ome s. This
is
e iden om he spon aneous
e e ences o ce ain
o
he alues and om he high sco es
cus ome s acco d G oup i ica cmployccs
in
e ms
o
he
alues.
In
ac . o e all. he cus ome a ings a c highe
han
a e hose ob ained
om
e111ployccs
;111d.
in
mos ciscs.
he
di e ence
is
signi ican .
The hi d
sub-p oposi ion
in es iga ed whe he he alues
sys em was e ec i e
in
acili a inc! cul u ;il unde s anding
and
in e ac ion. Once again. he da a
i~
suppo i e
o lm
p oposi-
ion.
The esul s om he con en
anal:sis
o
he cmplo:ce ques-
ionnai e (Table 2) indica e a high p opo ion
o
esponses
e-
la ing o he uni ying ole
o
he . lucs sys em
in
building
eamwo k ( 18.8%).
;
high
p1
Ppo ion
o
esponden s also
in-
dica ed ha he alues sys em a ec s l'la ionships wi hin
he
wo king en i onmen ( 14.9°0) ,ind
(1°0
()
cspo11dc11h
no e
ha he alues sys em assis s
in
nl u al
1111dc s ,111ding.
(he