Take one company value and define what it requires in a real decision. Name two to four behaviors that support it, the counter-behaviors that violate it, the boundaries that prevent misinterpretation, and the systems, leader actions, and feedback that reinforce the same standard. A value becomes operational when people can recognize it in ordinary work rather than merely recite the word.
Choose one value and put it inside a real work situation.
If the value is "ownership," ask what ownership should look like when a project slips, a customer raises a problem, or an employee notices a risk outside their immediate task.
If the value is "curiosity," ask what people should do when they disagree with an established process.
If the value is "customer care," ask how that value changes a decision when speed, cost, and service pull in different directions.
Then name the behaviors you should be able to see, the behaviors that would violate the value, and the systems and leader actions that reinforce the same standard.
A value becomes useful when it helps people make decisions.
Start with one value, not the whole culture
Company values are often written as abstract nouns because abstract nouns travel well.
Integrity. Ownership. Innovation. Respect. Excellence. Curiosity.
The difficulty appears when two people attach different behavior to the same word.
Aga Bajer's Genius Talk work addresses this problem directly. She emphasizes translating broad values into specific, observable behaviors and involving employees in that translation.
Her approach is useful because it forces the conversation out of the brand language and into work.
Take "challenge the status quo."
One team might interpret that as proposing alternatives and asking thoughtful questions. Another might interpret it as ignoring established processes whenever somebody has a better idea. In a regulated environment, the second interpretation could be dangerous.
The value needs a decision context and boundaries.
Start with one value because the goal is to learn how the translation works before creating a long behavior catalogue.
Put the value inside a real decision
Ask where the value should change what somebody does.
A value that cannot affect a decision is difficult to observe.
For example, suppose the value is ownership.
Instead of defining ownership as "taking responsibility," use real situations:
- a deadline may be missed;
- an employee sees a problem before their manager does;
- a customer request falls outside the normal process;
- work reaches a handoff with missing information;
- an error is discovered after delivery.
Now ask what ownership should look like in each case.
Perhaps the person should raise the risk early, propose a next step, correct what they can within their authority, and escalate when the consequence exceeds that authority.
Those are behaviors.
The same value may look different in another role. A frontline employee may be expected to solve routine issues directly. A junior employee may need to escalate earlier. A leader may need to remove the system problem that keeps creating the issue.
That is why context matters more than finding one perfect sentence.
Name the supporting behaviors
For the chosen decision context, write a short list of actions that another person could observe.
Good behavior statements use verbs.
Instead of:
"Be innovative."
Try:
"Bring one alternative when you identify a recurring process problem."
Instead of:
"Show respect."
Try:
"Challenge the idea without attacking the person, and let the other person finish before responding."
Instead of:
"Own the outcome."
Try:
"Raise a delivery risk as soon as it becomes visible, state what you have already checked, and propose the next action."
These examples are editorial illustrations, not claims about one real company.
Bajer's values-to-behavior approach supports the underlying method. The exact behavior has to fit the organization, role, risk, and work.
Two to four behaviors are usually enough for a first pass. If the list becomes a miniature employee handbook, the value is probably carrying too much operational detail.
Define the counter-behavior too
Teams learn a standard faster when they can also recognize what violates it.
If ownership means raising risks early, waiting until the deadline has already failed may be a counter-behavior.
If curiosity means asking questions before rejecting an idea, dismissing a proposal without understanding it may be a counter-behavior.
If respect means direct disagreement without personal attack, avoiding every difficult conversation is not automatically respectful. Neither is using "candor" as permission to be careless with people.
Counter-behaviors matter because positive words are easy to agree with.
The tension appears at the boundary.
Ask:
- What behavior would look superficially consistent with the value but actually undermine it?
- What trade-off does the value create?
- When does the value yield to a safety, legal, quality, or escalation requirement?
- What would a manager correct if they saw it?
This turns the value into a standard that can support feedback.
Connect the behavior to the system
Observable behavior will struggle to survive if the system rewards something else.
Matthew Person's Genius Talk culture work takes a systems-oriented view through what he calls the Square Management System: identity, instruction, intercommunication, and information feedback.
For operationalizing one value, the important lesson is that instruction and feedback have to match the expectation.
Suppose a company says it values thoughtful autonomy.
If every small decision requires senior approval, the process teaches dependence.
Suppose the company values customer care.
If employees are measured only on speed and are penalized whenever a complex customer issue takes longer, the measurement system may teach a different priority.
Look at the places where the value touches work:
- onboarding;
- role expectations;
- decision rights;
- approval paths;
- meeting habits;
- performance feedback;
- recognition;
- promotion;
- process design.
You do not need to redesign every system for one value. You do need to notice obvious contradictions.
Leaders teach the value through exceptions
Written behavior statements matter less when leaders repeatedly make exceptions to them.
Wesley Dove's Genius Talk perspective emphasizes the role of everyday leadership behavior in culture and belonging. The useful point here is practical: employees watch what managers and owners repeatedly do.
If leaders say "speak up early" but punish the first person who raises a difficult problem, the observed rule becomes silence.
If leaders say "quality matters" but praise people mainly for heroic last-minute speed, the observed rule may become urgency.
If leaders say "respect" but allow a high performer to violate the stated behavior, the exception can teach more than the value statement.
Leader modeling therefore belongs inside the value-to-behavior design.
Ask:
What will managers have to do differently for this standard to be credible?
The answer may be as simple as responding constructively when somebody follows the behavior under pressure.
Tie the value to a destination
Anthony Chaptal Taylor describes vision as a destination and emphasizes continued execution after planning.
That perspective helps prevent values from becoming isolated virtues.
A behavior should make sense in relation to what the organization is trying to accomplish.
"Speed" without context can reward haste. "Challenge" without direction can become constant disruption. "Customer care" without boundaries can create promises the business cannot deliver. "Autonomy" without decision rights can create inconsistent outcomes.
Ask what the value is for.
What does it help the company do better? What kind of decision should it improve? Which trade-off does it guide? Where does another obligation take priority?
A value becomes more useful when employees can connect the behavior to the destination rather than treating it as a personality test.
Use feedback to check whether the definition works
A written behavior list is a hypothesis about culture.
The real test is what happens in work.
After the team has used the definition for a while, review recent decisions.
Ask:
- Where did we see the value in action?
- Where was the behavior ambiguous?
- Did two teams interpret it differently?
- Did a manager reward something that conflicted with the stated standard?
- Did the process make the desired behavior difficult?
- Did the counter-behavior reveal a missing boundary?
- Does the wording need to become more specific?
This keeps the exercise grounded.
The goal is to improve the connection between a stated value and repeated work, without treating the document itself as proof of culture change.
A value-to-behavior worksheet
Use this template for one value at a time.
Value: What word or principle are we translating?
Purpose: What does this value help the organization protect or create?
Decision context: In which recurring situation should it change behavior?
Observable behaviors: What two to four actions should another person be able to see or hear?
Counter-behaviors: What actions violate the standard or misuse the value?
Boundaries: When should safety, law, quality, authority, or another obligation override the default behavior?
System reinforcement: Which process, role expectation, measure, or meeting habit should support it?
Leader modeling: What must managers do consistently?
Feedback question: What recent decision can we review to see whether the definition worked?
If a team can answer those questions, the value has moved closer to an operating standard.
If people can recite the value but still cannot agree on what it requires in a real decision, the translation is unfinished.