Research purpose: This article presents an effort to describe a value internalisation effort within a South African public service organisation as well as the results of a subsequent evaluation to ascertain to what extent those efforts actually led to internalisation throughout the organisation. A set of actions and practices were implemented within the public service organisation; the intent was that they should enhance value internalisation in the organisation. A long-term strategy of value internalisation was followed that focussed mainly on the clear articulation and communication of the values through different communication mediums and platforms, such as road shows and branded value material hand-outs, as well as through extensive value internalisation training.

Motivation for the study: Documentation of value internalisation processes and its evaluation, especially in South African public service organisations is extremely rare.  To ensure that public service organisations do not repeat the same mistakes in their value internalisation practices and implementation processes, proper documentation of these processes in the public and research domains are needed.  The need for the evaluation of value internalisation programmes should also be propagated as in many instances, programmes are implemented, but the subsequent success thereof is never evaluated.

Research design, approach and method: A survey questionnaire consisting of a 5-point rating scale was developed to measure the extent of value internalisation after the implementation of long-term internalisation strategies. Employees at different levels and in different units of the organisation participated in the survey.

Main findings: Results (N = 941) reflected lower than expected mean scores for each value component. In addition, differences in internalisation extent were found between two demographic variables, namely population groupings and organisational units.

Practical/managerial implications: The results of this study confirmed certain shortcomings in value internalisation processes, such as the way values are identified, communicated and reinforced. Knowledge of the latter may help human resource (HR) practitioners to apply more effective value shaping practices.

Contribution/value-add: This study provides specific guidelines that may enable practitioners to evaluate their own value internalisation practices. These guidelines include creating institutional value parity through employee engagement and encouraging leaders to facilitate both the emotional and cognitive interface of value internalisation efforts. Furthermore all leaders in the organisation should be exposed to training and development programmes that address the importance of leaders’ own credibility in efforts to institutionalise values within the organisation. The measurement instrument developed for this study may also provide HR practitioners with a means to evaluate the extent of value internalisation in an organisation.

The benefit of clearly articulated and entrenched organisational values has been established in many scholarly articles. They make a significant difference to the lives of employees, as well as to organisational performance (Posner, Kouzes & Schmidt, 1985; Posner, 2010; Sullivan et al., 2002). Shared organisational values result in more effective organisational operations (Schein, 1990, p. 84), superior financial results and overall organisational success (Van Lee, Fabish & McGraw, 2005). Schein (1990) as well as Gruys, Stewart, Goodstein, Bing and Wicks (2008) emphasise profitability as a benefit arising from shared, strong, coherent core values. They are also of the opinion that shared values build onto a strong organisational culture and contribute to increased ethical performance in the organisation. Sullivan et al. (2002) mention that values-led companies outperform companies that are not values-led with regard to growth in revenue, rate of job creation, growth of stock price as well as performance growth and lower turnover. Organisations that are values-driven are therefore more likely to gain a competitive advantage.

All organisations have values by which they operate; these values may be explicit or implicit (Brăinianu & Bălănescu, 2008). However, to reap the benefits that organisational values bring about, the values need to be clearly articulated as well as integrated in the organisation’s heart and mind. This implies that all the employees within an organisation as well as the management should not only know what the organisational values are, but also demonstrate value alignment through their own actions and behaviour. Stated differently, values should be articulated as well as enacted and entrenched in the practices of an organisation (Collins & Porras, 1994; Speculand & Chaudhary, 2008). Value-driven transformation in an organisation can only occur if the individuals in the organisation have begun to internalise the organisation’s chosen values. Values that are solely a management goal are therefore not seen as an asset to the organisation; they remain an empty banner which are articulated by management only, without any enactment by individual employees (and consequently the organisation as a whole). Values only become an asset when they are translated into behaviours, and all the employees demonstrate these behaviours in a way that influences organisational performance (Van Lee et al., 2005).

Organisational values are usually incorporated into organisation statements, strategic documents and communication media after they had been formulated and defined. Portraying values in writing is not difficult; it is the internalisation of organisational values that seems to be the challenge (Gruys et al., 2008; Speculand & Chaudhary, 2008). It is this challenge that is the key focus of this study. The objectives of this study were firstly to describe the value internalisation efforts of a public service organisation in South Africa, and secondly to evaluate the extent to which its specific and intensive value implementation efforts contributed to value internalisation within the different levels of the organisation; in other words, whether it actually filtered through to all the different levels within the organisation. This public service organisation falls within the safety and security industry (e.g. emergency personnel, police, SANDF). The value internalisation strategy focussed mainly on the clear articulation and communication of the values through different communication mediums and platforms, such as road shows and branded value material, as well as through extensive value internalisation training. The question which remained, and which this study aimed to answer, was whether all these efforts filtered through to all the levels within the organisation. Although extensive research has been conducted on the effects and advantages of being a values-driven organisation, little research has focussed on the implementation processes and the actual internalisation of organisational values (Morginson, 2009).

The saying ‘walk the talk’ captures the challenges many organisations face if they are to enact their espoused values (Fenton & Inglis, 2007). Value enactment is in many ways an alignment between the words (espoused values) of an organisation and its deeds (Dym & Hutson, 2005). This alignment of words and deeds is central to value implementation (Fenton & Inglis, 2007; Travaglione et al., 2009). If values are to be successfully integrated in an organisation, espoused and enacted values must be aligned. Espoused values are often no more than a list of values provided by the senior management of an organisation; value enactment, on the other hand, is central to value implementation and requires a deeper level of interpretation and internalisation within the organisation (Fenton & Inglis, 2007; McGaw & Fabish, 2006). Therefore, proper value internalisation within all levels of an organisation is imperative for value enactment. The current study specifically explores the extent of value internalisation at different levels and within different units of an organisation. Before the value internalisation framework of this study can be explained, however, it should be contextualised within the value internalisation practices found in the literature.

Sullivan et al. (2002) discuss the process of becoming a values-led organisation and identify three phases in the process, (1) identifying the organisational values, (2) building ownership of these values within the organisation and (3) aligning the espoused and enacted values. The first phase involves only a small part of the organisation, that is, management teams and sometimes representatives from lower level employee groups. Begley and Boyd (2000) refer to the use of focus groups of employees. These small subsets of the organisation choose the organisational values. After the values have been identified, it is important that they be tested with a wider group of people within the organisation. This is also the beginning of the second phase of the process which is the process of building ownership of the values within the whole organisation.

To build ownership of the values employees need to be given a chance to establish the overlap of their own values with those of the organisation. Sullivan et al. (2002) stated:

This overlap is important because it enables the individual to behave in ways that are meaningful to them personally and the results in their connecting with, and become committed to, the organisation – while at the same time furthering the company’s aims (p. 250).

The overlap of personal and organisational values is referred to as value congruence. It is not sufficient that employees know the organisational values; they should also believe in and internalise them (Chong, 2007).

Value congruence and more specifically its benefits have been documented extensively in the literature. These benefits include a positive work attitude (Posner, 2010), increased job satisfaction (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Posner, 2010; Verquer, Behr & Wagner, 2003), increased organisational commitment (Posner, 2010; Liedtka, 1989), increased organisational trust, intrinsic motivation, higher levels of organisational performance (Posner, 2010; Ren, 2010) and an increase in the extent to which the employee feels connected to the organisation and its values (Bartlet & Ghoshal, 1994; Valentine, Godkin & Lucero, 2002). Chong (2007) described the way in which organisational congruence gives external stakeholders an experience of the values, which, in turn, leads to an organisation attaining a sustainable competitive advantage.

Socialisation is the most important method of achieving value congruence as it is the primary method of transmitting and maintaining shared values (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Cazier, Shao & Louis, 2007; Grojean et al., 2004). Socialisation ensures that there is continuity in values as it provides employees with a framework of appropriate behaviours in various situations in their work environment (Cable & Parsons, 2001). A single socialisation event is, however, not sufficient; successful value transmitting requires a number of different socialisation events over time, such as during entry into the organisation, all training and development opportunities as well as regular internal communication opportunities, such as internal company newsletters or magazines (Chong, 2007).

Cable and Parsons (2001) argue that specific socialisation tactics increase congruence between employee values and organisational values. Sequential and fixed socialisation tactics by which newcomers are oriented with regard to their career progression and the sequence of activities they have to go through in their work situation are successful in producing change in personal value systems. In terms of the social aspects of socialisation, serial and investiture socialisation tactics as opposed to disjunctive and divestiture tactics are more successful in producing change in personal value systems. Disjunctive tactics are those that ‘force newcomers to develop their own definitions of situations‘ (Cable & Parsons, 2001, p. 7) without the help of experienced members of the organisation. Divestiture socialisation tactics result in newcomers receiving negative social communication from insiders until they begin to fulfil the expectations implied by the organisation’s values. If serial and investiture socialisation occurs, those who are new to the value systems receive positive social support from and spend time with members who know and have adopted the values. This type of socialisation is common in coaching and mentoring programmes. Highly institutionalised socialisation tactics which are systematic and planned by the organisation with the aim or reducing ambiguity in employees are more successful in changing employee values and creating congruence between employee and organisational values (Kim, Cable & Kim, 2004).

Van Maanen and Schein (1979) discussed institutionalised role orientation socialisation tactics and individualised role orientation tactics. The former entails teaching individuals to respond in the same way that existing members in the organisation do. This approach relies heavily on obedience and conformity to existing practices. The latter tactic allows individuals to exercise their own creativity and innovation, and to experiment with changing norms and values. The application of these tactics will depend on the organisational context.

The socialisation programmes mentioned by Sullivan et al. (2002) include making the employees aware of their own and the organisation’s values through a process of discussion, workshops and organisational coaching. Employees are given the opportunity to engage with the ‘new’ organisational values so that they may develop an understanding of them. Engagement processes must involve activities through which a shared understanding of expected work behaviours is established. Activities should be aimed at the intellectual as well as emotional involvement of those present (Sullivan et al., 2002). Begley and Boyd (2000) mention that activities during training or socialisation programmes should not only improve awareness levels but also improve the application of the values. They suggest the use of decision-making exercises in which the values are applied in concrete situations. Chong (2007) stresses that communication should be participative in nature and mentions, as an example, discussions which engage participants.

Aggerholm, Anderson, Asmuß and Thomsen (2009) also focus on organisational socialisation. They emphasise the importance of management communication in the process of value internalisation. For them, management communication is not only a tool for control and information dissemination, but also for the achievement of employee cooperation and for aligning employees values with organisational values. Management communication should articulate and actively communicate the company’s values by means of internal communication methods and various types of management conversations. Communication does not, however, necessarily lead to enactment. ‘For corporate values to be more than just words, the values portrayed must be integrated in various symbols and in the daily procedures of the organisation‘ (Aggerholm et al., 2009, p. 266). For instance, management speeches, reward systems, rituals and ceremonies should all be imbedded in the organisational values. Aggerholm et al. (2009) focus specifically on management conversations as a strategy for value integration. Management conversations include conversations such as recruitment conversations, job appraisal interviews, sickness leave conversations and dismissal conversations. It is clear from this list that organisational values need to be deeply integrated in management behaviour if they are to be integrated into organisational conversations at this level.

In the last phase of the process of becoming a values-led organisation, as described by Sullivan et al. (2002), espoused values should be aligned to the behaviour of the individual employees as well as that of the organisation as a whole. In the case of the former, value enactment should always be visible in the behaviour of the management team. Many researchers have considered the importance of management in the creation of an organisation’s value system (Grojean et al., 2004). Sullivan et al. (2002, p. 228) hold that ‘it is crucial that the management be seen to be living the values and actively working on dealing with shortfalls in their own behaviour’. In addition Grojean et al. (2004, p. 228) mention that ‘the behaviour of leaders is a powerful communication mechanism that conveys the expectations, values and assumptions of the culture and climate to the rest of the organization’. The behaviour of direct leaders is one of the primary influences on individual employee behaviour (Grojean et al., 2004).

Grojean et al. (2004) discuss various mechanisms by which leaders can transmit organisational values. These include values-based leadership, especially transformation and charismatic approaches; modelling behaviour that are congruent with organisational values; establishing clear expectations through appropriate policies, practices and training and formal socialisation activities; providing feedback on employee behaviour through coaching and mentoring employees; recognising and rewarding value supportive behaviour by employees through both formal and informal measures. The congruence between managers’ and subordinates’ values may be a mediating factor in individual organisational values congruence since the interpersonal congruence between supervisor and subordinates is related to the quality of leader-member exchange (Grojean et al., 2004). Leaders throughout the organisation should also send consistent messages with regard to their value orientation. This implies a shared cognisance of the organisational values. Leader training in this regard, as well as in transmitting the values, may be advantageous to the process of value internalisation. Begley and Boyd (2000) suggest training for managers and supervisors in small group settings to educate them on the organisation’s values.

In terms of the organisation as whole, the processes and systems within the organisation need to be consistent with its values. If there are forces within the organisation, such as different subsystems or departments, which do not share the organisational values, it may cause a negative organisational climate regarding its values. Communication, or rather articulation, of these values in a formal and systematic way to ensure an understanding of it throughout the organisation is essential. It is also the first step towards a value-driven organisation (Begley & Boyd, 2000). According to Morginson (2009) any management control system such as e-mail can be used to send regular messages with regard to the values and their meaning within the organisation. Other mechanisms that are used to communicate core values include the drafting of credos, mission statements, statements of purpose, policy manuals and similar documents, all of which convey the core values to the organisation by formalising them, making them more visible and reinforcing them. Mechanisms which rely on indirect communication may not be taken seriously (Morginson, 2009); on the other hand, if values are not yet inculcated, articulation may leave latitude for more than one interpretation (Begley & Boyd, 2000). A deep level of understanding of and engagement with the organisational values should not be forgotten in the internalisation efforts (Simmons, 2002). Begley and Boyd (2000, p. 11) suggest that when values are articulated there should be a guideline statement for each value which applies the value to specific work domains and will therefore help to instil them through ’patterns that are expected to characterise value-based decision-making‘.

The internalisation process as described and discussed by Sullivan et al. (2002) is not a once-off process; regular reinforcement and renewal should be implemented to assure that the values stay alive in the minds of the employees. In a case study of Singapore Airlines, Chong (2007) describes the process of communication of its core values as relentless; the company’s core values are communicated when new employees first join, when employees attend training programmes and corporate events, and through internal communication channels such as company magazines and pocket-size copies of the core value statements. Furthermore an evaluation system is in place which ensures that employees’ behaviour is consistent with the company’s core values. Morginson (2009) refers to the ‘Friday afternoon e-mail’ from the chief executive officer (CEO); it contains his views on the progress of value implementation and usually includes reminders of the rationale behind the programme and clarification on its strategic importance.

The level of authority of the individuals who implement the internalisation of values is an important factor to consider. Serrat (2010) reports that in a study involving the senior management of 365 companies from 30 countries, 85% of the respondents believed that the CEO’s support in reinforcing the values was critical, and 77% were of the opinion that the CEO’s involvement was one of the most important value implementation practices.

The Value Inculcation Model (VIM) of Speculand and Chaudhary (2008) also provides some clarification on value internalisation. The authors describe four phases in the process of value internalisation, (1) identifying or renewing organisational values, (2) changing the attitude of the employees, (3) changing the behaviour of the employees and (4) changing the organisational performance. As did Sullivan et al. (2002), they stress the importance of the employees’ understanding of the values but add that not only the desired behaviour, but also the desired attitude should be linked to the values. The key focus of their model is changing the employees’ behaviour so that it is consistent with the organisational values. Their argument simply rests on the behavioural model which advocates that when employees display the desired behaviour they should be encouraged to repeat the behaviour until it becomes a deeply ingrained habit. Encouragement, according to Speculand and Chaudhary (2008), rests on leaders’ implementing measures to track performance and to provide feedback on and recognition of acceptable behaviour.

Whilst there is similarity between the VIM and the process described by Sullivan et al. (2002), Hyde and Williamson (2000) describe a different approach. They advocate that instead of a small subset of the organisation identifying organisational values and then ‘selling’ them to the rest of the organisation, values should be selected by identifying and describing the values of the employees. Identifying values should incorporate a ‘rich process of discussion and debate‘ (p. 12), after which the process of alignment can start. The latter includes an effective selection process to attract and recruit the right staff, value induction and training programmes, providing incentives and rewards for desired behaviour, and imposing penalties and sanctions for non-desired behaviour. Posner et al. (1985, p. 305) reflect on similar value related practices, such as programmes to clarify and communicate values, recruitment selection and orientation, training, rewards systems and counselling support to create a value advantage. As did Sullivan et al. (2002), Hyde and Williamson (2000) emphasise ownership of the values by the employees. They agree with VIM in that they believe employees should be held accountable for reaching tangible outcomes based on clear performance targets.

None of the literature discussed above is specifically dedicated to evaluating internalisation within public service organisations, which is the sector on which the current study focussed. Although their approach has not been described in an academic publication, the United States Air Force (1997) claims that its value implementation practices entail sound horizontal and vertical integration within the organisation, that their approach contributes to a deep level of interpretation and internalisation of value enactment within the organisation, and that it has a top-down, bottom-up and back-and-forth approach. In the top-down approach the leaders make a sincere statement of personal commitment to their core values, educate and train staff with regard to the values at all levels within the organisation, engage immediate subordinates in discussions on the specific roles the values play in the organisation, and consciously include the core values in all feedback and mentoring sessions to subordinates, with special emphasis on operational application. The bottom-up approach includes all the members within the organisation. They have to examine all policies, processes and procedures that may contribute to a culture of compromise. This includes listing circumstances in which members of the organisation are tempted to act in a manner inconsistent with their core values, sharing their feelings with others in the organisation to identify common patterns of potential compromise, and finally identifying possible causes of these recurrent patterns. The back-and-forth approach includes active engagement of all the members of the organisation in wide ranging discussions to find the best ways to internalise the organisation’s core values. This approach is more focussed on the articulation of values and establishing ownership (as described in the process of Sullivan et al. [2002]) than on aligning espoused and enacted values (Sullivan et al., 2002) or changing employee behaviour (VIM).

To support a culture of excellence, the organisation introduced a newly developed principle-centred value system, promoted as the slogan: ‘Integrity, human dignity and excellence in all we do.’ This slogan was to act as the primary vehicle to facilitate the required culture changes. Covey (2003) emphasises the importance of aligning values with universal principles to bring about more parity in people’s actions and behaviours. The values that were developed and used by this particular organisation are, of course, not unique to the organisation. They are universal and used by many organisations. Integrity, for instance, is one of the most commonly found organisational values (Sullivan et al., 2002). It is a core organisational value of the United States Air Force (1997), the Springfield city council (http://www.ci.springfield.or.us) and the United States National Park Service (Serrat, 2010), to name but a few.

Human dignity is also a core organisation value of many organisations, including, for example, the Oil Turbo Compressor Group (http://oilturbocompressor.com) and the Seniors Home Care group (http://www.seniorshomecare.com/). Similarly, Excellence in all we do was formally adopted as a core value by the United States Air Force (1997) and the Leadership Development Network (http://www.leadershipdevelopmentnetwork.com) also sees it as one of their core leadership principles. Similar values are found in a review of the most prominent organisational values of public sector organisations (Van der Wal & Huberts, 2008). There are a number of organisations who use similar combinations of values (e.g. Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson and Hewlett Packard).

The organisation under discussion chose its core values after the core values of many other organisations had been studied. Focus groups, strategic work sessions and brainstorming sessions with senior management were held over a six-month period before the choice of values was finalised.

For this organisation, integrity was defined in the most practical terms. It is based on the principle of doing what is right even when nobody is watching over you. Integrity is also the cornerstone of trust, an element of leadership that is fundamental for successful relationships. Integrity provides the basis for establishing leadership credibility within the organisation. Human dignity is based on the principle of treating others the way you would be treated. The behaviours associated with this value reflect how leaders create the conditions in the workplace for their followers to do what needs to be done and to develop them to the highest level of their own potential. These behaviours not only refer to the relationship between leaders and followers, but also indicate how members should interact with one another within the organisation. Excellence in all we do refers to the value of being an organisation of excellence. It is directly linked to continuous improvement. If a mindset of continuous improvement is to be created, people’s creative potential must be utilised to enable them to ‘do more with less’. In embracing excellence people within the organisation must be allowed to unleash their full innovative powers and potential through an achievement and performance culture.

In order to facilitate the internalisation of these values, an extensive implementation framework consisting of various actions and endeavours by different role players within the organisation was introduced. The actions and endeavours included:

• The organisation’s values were set out and explained in a clear belief statement, and this was accompanied by a list of behaviours highlighting the nature and intent of the values. This was aimed at enhancing the understanding and practical application of value-driven practices within the organisation.

• The three chosen values were conceptualised and illustrated through references to the behavioural patterns of eagles. Branded value material in the form of posters, key rings, CDs and DVDs was distributed throughout the organisation. The aim of this initiative was to achieve a cognitive and, above all, an emotional connection with the new values so as to bring about higher levels of association with and commitment to the new required behaviour within the organisation.

• The senior executive conducted a road show to communicate the importance of these values within the organisation. This was intended to demonstrate a unified, top-down approach to what was expected within the organisation.

• All key role players were issued with a framework to aid in the institutionalisation of the values based on a process of socialisation, integration and recognition. This framework was aimed at facilitating the incorporation of the values into existing practices, policies and procedures. This practice was seen as critically important to change behaviour throughout the organisation and was intended to promote horizontal and vertical dialogue on the relevance of value related practices and behaviours.

• Extensive training interventions took place to aid the understanding and internalisation of the values. Approximately 3000 employees were exposed to these interventions. The aim of the training sessions was to create awareness of the new value behaviours required. They were also aimed at facilitating a changed mindset in terms of achieving better congruence and acceptance of the values. Those leaders in the organisation who had the greatest responsibility in modelling and shaping the new values of the organisation were required to attend the training.

Despite the intense nature of the value internalisation efforts, there was no guarantee that they actually led to changed values in the organisation. The remainder of this article describes the methodology used to evaluate the extent to which internalisation did take place as well as the results of the study.

Of the respondents who completed the survey, 83.28% represented the non-managerial to middle management levels of the organisation (Table 2). In terms of age the largest group represented was the age group between 25 and 44 (Table 3). Seventy-seven percent of the sample was male and 23% female, which replicates the gender distribution in this specific organisation. Of the respondents, 36.78% had 11 or more years’ experience and 54.21% had ten years’ or less experience in the organisation (Table 4). In terms of race representation, the sample consisted of 25 Asian (2.88%), 363 White (41.87%), 138 Mixed race (15.92%) and 341 Black (39.33%) respondents (Table 5).

Items were measured on a 5-point rating scale: 1 (always), 2 (most of the time), 3 (sometimes), 4 (almost never), 5 (never). In the original questionnaire a sixth option, ‘Don’t know‘, was included, but as processing the data both with and without the sixth option yielded no significant difference, the sixth option was excluded.

A factor analysis was conducted in order to obtain adequate representation of the relevant values. Data were subjected to item and factor analysis. Since only factor loadings of above 0.3 were considered, 12 items were omitted (Kline, 1997, p. 5).

The Kaiser criterion for factor extraction was used and six factors were identified (Table 6). Since the Kaiser criterion is widely criticised (Velicer & Jackson, 1990), a Scree plot was also applied (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The Scree plot results retained three factors (Table 7).

The second factor related to the importance of putting people first and underpinned the value of human dignity. Putting people first reflected the way in which leaders created conditions in the workplace to maximise their followers’ potential. By putting people first, the organisation upholds people’s dignity by respecting them and valuing their human ability and competence.

The third factor reflected the importance of creating a mindset of achievement orientation, thereby supporting the establishment of excellence. Excellence can be achieved only if a mindset of achievement is established. This mindset is created if people in the organisation are rewarded and recognised for their efforts and achievements.

The questionnaire’s reliability was determined by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. According to Hinton, Brownlow, McMurray and Cozens (2004, p. 357) 0.75 reliability is a sensible comprised value to determine reliability. According to the reliability indicators all three factors as well as the overall alpha were above 0.80 (Table 9).

Delegates that volunteered to take part in the study were briefed on the aim of the study, the confidentiality of their responses, voluntary participation and instructions for completing the questionnaire. The respondents had the right to withdraw from the study at any stage. They did not provide their names or personnel numbers on the questionnaires. Consent was assumed when the respondents completed the questionnaires. In total 932 questionnaires were completed by means of this process.

The results per unit, gender, race, managerial level, age group and experience levels can be seen in Table 10 – Table 15.

The results based on the ANOVAs indicated that there were significant differences within only two independent variables of the identified value components, namely population (race) and unit (Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18). However, the significant difference for population (race) between Black (39.33%) and White staff (41.87%) was reflected only for factor 1, leader credibility (M_White = 2.504; SD_White = 2.907; M_Black = 2.907; SD_Black = 0.767). There were also significant differences between various units in the organisation for all three factors: leader credibility, people first and achievement orientation. The post hoc comparisons showed that three units differed significantly (< .0001) from one another in terms of factor 1: the Mobile Deployment unit (M = 3.062; SD = 0.775) differed significantly from the Advanced Training unit (M = 2.120; SD = 0.595), the Operational Training unit (M = 2.386; SD = 0.705) and the Operational Test Centre (M = 2.276; SD = 0.736). In terms of Factor 2, significant differences were evident between the Operational Test Centre (M = 2.353; SD = 0.642) and the Main unit 1 (M = 2.929; SD = 0.652), Main unit 2 (M = 2.923; SD = 0.760), the Advanced Training unit (M = 2.402; SD = 0.653), Main unit 4 (M = 3.057; SD = 0.769) and the Mobile Deployment unit (M = 3.039; SD = 0.778). The largest differences were between the Main Unit 4 and the Operational Test Centre. For Factor 3, significant differences were found between the Operational Test Centre and four other units (Main unit 1 [M = 3.048; SD = 0.914], Main unit 4 [M = 3.324; SD = 0.918], Headquarters [M = 3.179; SD = 0.918] and the Mobile Deployment unit [M = 3.222; SD = 0.985]).

Average and lower than expected results were found. The responses obtained with regard to all three value constructs and their tendency to lean more towards scale value 3 (sometimes) indicated that the desired value behaviours were not prominent enough within the organisation. Although other factors could have affected these results, it was anticipated that pertinent and focussed newly introduced value related interventions and practices, by their very nature, should have contributed more positively to the internalisation results. Because of these lower than expected levels of internalisation, it can therefore be concluded that value congruence had not been achieved. If a critical appraisal is made of the internalisation efforts, the following can be commented on, (1) the identification of the values, (2) communication of values and (3) reinforcement of the values.

Significant differences in terms of dependent variables such as population groups and units within the organisation provided more evidence of a fragmented internalisation. The significant differences between the responses of Black and White staff on the leader credibility scale imply that leadership credibility is perceived differently by the two groups. This difference confirms that leadership credibility can be affected not only by managerial fashions and organisational change, as stated by Simons (2002), but possibly also by racial differences. Hofstede (1984, 1994, 1997, 2001) indicated that cultural differences as well as individual expectations and assumptions about leadership influence leadership behaviour. In a South African context, studies by Booysen (2001) and Littrell and Nkomo (2005) indicated that there were differences between Black and White leaders regarding preferred leadership behaviour.

Although an effort was made to keep the internalisation efforts unified throughout the whole organisation, the results of this study showed significant differences in the degree of internalisation amongst various units (training and operational) regarding all three factors. This can be attributed to possibly different interpretations and institutional approaches throughout the organisation and to the fact that unit managers of the different units may have applied different key value implementation approaches and practices with regard to socialisation, value induction, reinforcement of applicable value behaviour, value process alignment, and selection and orientation. In addition, certain units may have been more committed in their efforts to bring about a behavioural change in support of the values. The lack of unity has a recursive effect on the internalisation of values. The less unity there is across an organisation, the less the values will be internalised successfully. This result confirms the importance and relevance of vertical and horizontal communication throughout the organisation to create a deeper level of value understanding.

The results further indicate that many of the initiatives, although well formulated, may have lacked depth and a more aggressive approach to their implementation may have been needed. In efforts to create congruence between the organisation’s implicit values and individuals’ values, it is important to take into account both the cognitive and the affective desires of members of the organisation. With regard to the initiatives and actions taken to achieve socialisation, the results indicate that a mostly cognitive approach was followed. In view of the reported results the organisation’s focus on a cognitive level of internalisation was probably one of the reasons why the interventions did not fully succeed in altering employees’ current schemata (highly subjective mental or cognitive representations).

Another shortcoming of the value internalisation efforts described in this study is that values had not been integrated into the policy and procedures of the organisation. HR practitioners should encourage leaders to facilitate the emotional–cognitive interface of employees to create a heightened state of psychological awareness and readiness to deal with the value change interface towards stronger internalisation. This can be achieved by applying a more intense socialisation framework in which the actions and implications of new value related behaviours are integrated into existing policy and procedures. A single guided value-related denominator such as ’creating a sense of belonging’ as part of the value ‘people first‘ can be incorporated into career and retention management strategies and practices, for example. Human resource practitioners have a responsibility to implement human resource practices which are consistent with the enforcement of value related practices. Practices could even include promotion for employees who demonstrate high value congruence.

The results of his study showed that value integration was not satisfactory for the middle and top management levels in the organisation. In the literature, leadership involvement and more specifically enactment of values have been shown to have a major impact on value internalisation efforts. Human resource practitioners should understand and support the importance of building leadership credibility in the organisation to enhance value internalisation. Firstly, word–deed alignment should be enhanced through leader participation in a more aggressive and continuous value communication campaign throughout the organisation. When leaders espouse the same values through different mediums and for different audiences, their credibility is reinforced. Secondly, public articulation by leaders of value-related interpretations contributes to a deeper level of consciousness, affecting leadership practices such as resource allocation and decision making. Thirdly, when leaders enact value behaviours according to their communicated intent, they project a stable and consistent behavioural pattern that allows for follower-leader modelling. Key leaders in the organisation can be enrolled for mentorship and coaching programmes to further their credibility. Finally, value inculcation can also be reinforced through leadership development and training. Human resource practitioners, however, should ensure that these efforts coincide with an intense, practical focus throughout the organisation. Human resource practitioners should introduce mechanisms to ensure that the transfer of learning takes place through relevant value-related practices.

This study has revealed an important consideration for public service organisations intending to embark on efforts to build a strong value-driven organisational culture. Formulating and introducing a set of value and related actions and practices do not necessarily contribute to deeper value internalisation and inculcation. Organisations that demonstrate a deep sense of belief and conviction in support of their values are committed to far more intensely value-related practices.

Aggerholm, H.K., Anderson, M.A., Asmuß, B., & Thomsen, C. (2009). Management conversations in Danish Companies: Communicating corporate values and strategies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(3), 264–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980050

Askun, D., Oz, E.U., & Askun, O.B. (2010). Understanding managerial work values in Turkey. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 103–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-099-0185-y

Bartlet, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: Beyond strategy to purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79–88.

Begley, T.M., & Boyd, D.P. (2000). Articulating corporate values through Human Resources Policies. Business Horizons, July–August, 8–12.

Beukman, T.L. (2005). The effect of selected variables on leadership behaviour within the framework of a transformational organisation paradigm. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Brăinianu, C., & Bălănescu, G.V. (2008). Vision, mission and corporate values: A comparative analysis of the top 50 US companies. Marketing & Management, 3(3), 19–38.

Booysen, L. (2001). The duality in South African leadership: Afrocentric or Eurocentric. South African Journal of Labour Relations, 25(3–4), 36–64.

Cable D.M., & Parsons, C.K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23.

Cambra-Fierro, J., Polo-Redondo, Y., & Wilson, A. (2008). The influence of an organisation’s corporate values on employees’ personal buying behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 157–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9486-1

Cazier, J.A., Shao, B.B.M., & Louis, R.D.S. (2007). Sharing information and building trust through value congruence. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(5), 515–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-007-9051-6

Chong, M. (2007). The role of internal communication and training in infusing corporate values and delivering brand promise: Singapore Airlines’ experience. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 201–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550051

Collins, J.C., & Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins.

Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

Covey, S.R. (2003). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Free Press.

Dym, B., & Hutson, H. (2005). Leadership in nonprofit organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Edwards, J.R., & Cable, D.M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014891, PMid:19450005

Fenton, N.E., & Inglis, S. (2007). A critical perspective on organisational values. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(3), 335–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.153

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics with SPSS. (3rd edn.). London: Sage Publications.

Garvin, D.A., & Roberto, M.A. (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, February. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/hbr/hbrsa/current/0502/article/R0502F.jhtml

Grojean, M.W., Resick, C.J., Dickson, M.W., & Smith, D.B. (2004). Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing organizational climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(3), 223–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1275-5

Gruys, M.L., Stewart, S.M., Goodstein, J., Bing, M.N., & Wicks, A.C. (2008). Values enactment in organizations: A multi-level examination. Journal of Management, 34, 806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318610

Hinton, P.R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS Explained. London: Routledge.

Hofstede, G.H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: SAGE.

Hofstede, G.H. (1994). Uncommon sense about organizations: Cases, studies and field observations. London: SAGE.

Hofstede, G.H. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Hyde, P., & Williamson, B. (2000). The importance of organisational values, part 3: Choosing and implementing organisational values. Focus on Change Management, 68(October), 10–14.

Kim, T., Cable, D.M., & Kim, S. (2004). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.232, PMid:15769234

Kline, P. (1997). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.

Liedtka, J.M. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and organisational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(10), 805–815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00383780

Littrell, R.F., & Nkomo, S.M. (2005). Gender and race differences in leader behaviour preferences in South Africa. Women in Management Review, 20(8), 562–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420510635204

McGaw, N., & Fabish, L. (2006). Put your values to work. Harvard Business Update, 11, 3–5.

Morginson, D. (2009). Value systems as a mechanism for organizational change. Journal of Accounting & Organisational Change, 5(1), 7–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18325910910932197

Posner, B.Z. (2010). Another look at the impact of personal and organizational values congruency. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 535–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0530-1

Posner, B.Z., Kouzes, J.M., & Schmidt, W.H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930240305

Ren, T. (2010). Value congruence as a source of intrinsic motivation. KYKLOS, 63(1), 94–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00462.x

Schein, E.H. (1990). Organisational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

Serrat, O. (2010). A primer on corporate values. Knowledge Solutions, 87, Asian Development Bank.

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

Speculand, R., & Chaudhary, R. (2008). Living organisational values: The bridges value inculcation model. Business Strategy Series, 9(6), 324–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515630810923630

Sullivan, W., Sullivan, R., & Buffton, B. (2002). Aligning individual and organisational values to support change. Journal of Change Management, 2(3), 247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/738552750

Travaglione, T., McShane, S., O’Neill, G., & Hancock, J. (2009). The relationship between managerial values enactment, as a construct of behavioural integrity, and employee trust in management. Proceedings of the eleventh international conference of the Society for Global and Economic Development (SGBED). Comenius University, Bratislava.

United States Air Force core values. (1997). Retrieved December 27, 2003, from http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-calue/cv--mastr.html

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organisational commitment, and person-organisation fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 349–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021203017316

Van der Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. (2008). Value solidity in government and business: Results of an empirical study on public and private sector organisational values. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(264), 264–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074007309154

Van Lee, R., Fabish, L., & McGraw, N. (2005). The value of corporate values. Strategy and Business, 39, 3–13.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour, Vol. 1 (pp. 209–264). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI press.

Velicer, W.F., & Jackson, D.N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor-analysis – some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 97–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_12

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organisation fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 63, 473–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2