We suggest that there are three major inhibitors to widespread implementation of VBO in business, government and in the non-profit sector.

1. Half a dozen widespread false dichotomies
2. The lack of an overall systemic framework
3. A dearth of tools for translating a deep strategy into day-to-day business practice

False Dichotomies:

1. “I have a choice between doing what is right and achieving financial success”
   
2. “Values-driven orientation is long-term.  If I don’t give top priority to the short-term, there will be no long term for me”
   
3. “The pie is finite.  If I don’t grab as much of it as I can, my (internal and external) competitors will”
   
4. “I am the only one in my environment who would like to embrace a deeper and more genuine outlook.  If I come out of the closet on this my colleagues, customers and investors will think that I am crazy”
   
5.  “Implementing this new paradigm demands trust and openness.  In the meantime, most of the world operates in the old, fear-driven paradigm.  I will become road kill”
   
6. “How can I preach values such as integrity and authenticity? I have not always been authentic or acted out of integrity”

These can be easily debunked through statistical evidence, live examples and personal experience.

These fears are, however, so deeply anchored in our collective psyche that only dealing with them explicitly, preferably in a group setting can effectively eliminate this obstacle.

Lack of a common Framework:

Almost every sizeable organization has had and still has a number of initiatives and projects crying out for some kind of order. 

More often than not these initiatives:

• Compete for management attention, money and rare skills
• Have an uneven impact on their direct stakeholders
• Are based on assumptions which are:
• Not shared by all
• Not explicit or well understood
• Out of date
• Poorly validated
• Use widely differing measurement systems

The same often applies to some business-critical processes, e.g. supply-chain management, customer management, talent management and product management.

This does not mean that these initiatives and processes are ill conceived or managed by incompetent people.  It is a natural result of a view of differing and non-holistic (or non-systemic) views of the business and of the lack of recognition of the fact that conversations (and ensuing actions) take place at different levels of depth.

This effect, which can be called Fragmentation or Separation manifests in organizations as vertical and horizontal silos, which inhibit communication and innovation, are very costly to operate and are detrimental to a healthy company culture. We ought to carefully distinguish decentralization, diversity, empowerment and delegation of authority from fragmentation. In fact, those can only work well within an integrated, i.e. unfragmented whole.

The need for a Common Framework, or Architecture clearly emerges from this analysis.

Dearth of tools:

Traditional approaches to the design and management of key projects, processes and measurement systems do not take into account an organization’s Core Foundation, i.e. its set of shared Values, the common Purpose which shapes it and the Vision that drives it, even if these key elements are explicitly spelled out.

This makes it very difficult to ensure that the business lives these Values fully and, even in the case of brilliant, well-intentioned leaders, often creates duality between what is preached and what is practiced.

A novel approach to project management, process design and management and to metrics is imperative.