As Schein notes, "[a]ll group learning ultimately reflects someone's original beliefs and values, their sense of what ought to be, as distinct from what is."  At this level, the emphasis is on the values that leaders say an organization has, NOT necessarily the values that it actually has. It is very popular these days for organizations to supplement their bold mission statements with an impressive list of values. At the Institute, we examine these values in light of the actual behaviors and activities that are prioritized as a result of their adoption. 

When values are reflected as "priorities" in this way, the maturity and sustainability of a company can be assessed. Young organizations can espouse "good" values but shifting priorities can dilute or even harm "what" the organization actually does. Many companies say they value integrity, but, in reality, their employees consistently lie, cheat and steal to make a profit (Enron). Mature organizations, on the other hand, find their sustainability in the tension and conflict that comes from testing or violating core (or fundamental) priorities. Every great conflict in America reflected this tension in living out the priorities of life, liberty and the pursuit of "happiness" (civil war, women's rights, racial equality, abortion, etc.). Even the mortgage banking crisis reflects a deeper culture conflict with America's view of happiness embedded in the priority of happiness (Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said the "pursuit of property").

Yet whatever the institution, the key point to keep in mind is that a basic understanding of the priorities a community or organization practices brings far more clarity to its values than does a study of it's mission and value statements.