Core values guiding your decisions per Schwartz and Barrett.
Values analysis is a motivational diagnostic tool that identifies the deep priorities governing the individual's behavior, decisions, and job satisfaction. Unlike personality assessments that measure stable traits or behavioral profiles that measure observable action patterns, values analysis penetrates the deepest motivational layer: the priority system that determines which directions are perceived as meaningful, which achievements generate genuine satisfaction, which cultural environments produce sustained engagement, and which generate chronic friction regardless of objective conditions.
The framework integrates two models with extensive empirical validation. Shalom Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values, developed through research across more than seventy countries over three decades, identifies ten universal value types organized in a circular model with four higher-order dimensions: Openness to Change versus Conservation, and Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence. The circular structure establishes that adjacent values reinforce each other while opposing values create motivational tension — a property with direct implications for predicting cultural fit and role satisfaction. The ten values in the model are Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence, and Universalism; their arrangement in the circular space predicts which values tend to reinforce each other in the same individual and which generate internal motivational tension when they coexist as priorities.
Richard Barrett's Seven Levels of Consciousness Model (Barrett Values Centre, 1997), which extends Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1943) to the domain of organizational consciousness, has been applied in more than six thousand organizations globally and adds a dimension of motivational maturity to the analysis. The seven levels — Survival, Relationship, Self-Esteem, Transformation, Internal Cohesion, Making a Difference, and Service — represent a progression from motivations centered on basic needs and external recognition (levels 1-3) toward motivations centered on purpose, contribution, and systemic impact (levels 5-7). Level 4 (Transformation) constitutes the critical bridge between both orientations. The model includes the identification of Potentially Limiting Values (PLVs) — fear-based motivational patterns that consume organizational energy without producing results — and the calculation of personal entropy, which quantifies the proportion of motivational capacity compromised by protection patterns versus creation patterns.
The system operates across four analytical axes that, when integrated, produce a motivational diagnostic of high applicability for talent decisions.
Axis 1 — Core values profile. The analysis identifies the individual's five to seven dominant values and characterizes them not as abstract labels but as concrete behavioral drivers. An individual who prioritizes Self-Direction exhibits predictable behaviors: resistance to processes imposed without justification, greater productivity in high-autonomy environments, preference for roles where they can define their own methods, and potential friction in cultures with heavy procedural regulation. Each value is translated into observable behavioral indicators, environment preferences, and misalignment risk.
Axis 2 — Schwartz dimensional analysis. Values are mapped onto the circular model across four dimensions, identifying the dominant motivational orientation. An individual with high Openness to Change and high Self-Transcendence presents a motivational profile oriented toward innovation with purpose — they seek to change things but for collective benefit. An individual with high Conservation and high Self-Enhancement presents a profile oriented toward success within established structures — ambitious but respectful of the rules of the game. The analysis of tension between opposing poles reveals areas of internal motivational conflict that may manifest as indecision, inconsistency, or chronic dissatisfaction in roles that require choosing one pole over the other. These tensions are not flaws — they are motivational complexities that require environments allowing expression of both poles in different contexts.
Axis 3 — Barrett center of gravity and entropy. The distribution of values across the seven levels reveals the individual's motivational maturity. Individuals whose center of gravity falls at levels 1-3 operate predominantly from motivations of security, belonging, and recognition — they are effective in roles where these motivations align with organizational objectives but may present limitations in roles requiring long-term strategic vision, disruptive innovation, or transformational leadership. Individuals whose center of gravity falls at levels 5-7 operate from purpose, authenticity, and systemic contribution — they are effective in transformational leadership and strategic development roles but may experience frustration in highly bureaucratic or transactional cultures. The absence of Level 4 (Transformation) in the profile indicates risk: the individual may aspire to high-level contributions without having developed the personal resilience, radical responsibility, and capacity for self-examination that sustain those contributions under pressure.
Axis 4 — Potentially limiting values and entropy patterns. PLVs are organized into four categories: control-based (micromanagement, dominance, need to predict), approval-based (image-seeking, popularity, dependence on external validation), security-based (blaming, rigidity, silo mentality, information hoarding), and avoidance-based (conflict evasion, procrastination, complacency, denial). Each category has measurable organizational impact: control-based PLVs reduce team autonomy and innovation; approval-based PLVs compromise decision-making under social pressure; security-based PLVs generate defensive and poorly collaborative cultures; avoidance-based PLVs allow critical problems to escalate without intervention. Personal entropy — the percentage of declared values that are potentially limiting — provides a quantifiable risk indicator: individuals with entropy above 20% present significantly higher probability of generating low-trust, high-turnover, and low-engagement cultures in their areas of influence.
The analysis integrates the dimensions validated by the field's four reference instruments: Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ), validated across eighty-two countries with more than four hundred academic publications; the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) of fifty-seven items, the original instrument that established the circular structure of the ten values; the Barrett Values Centre's Cultural Transformation Tools (CTT), applied in more than six thousand organizations for cultural diagnostic; and Barrett's Personal Values Assessment (PVA), the individual instrument that identifies the most significant values of the evaluee and their distribution between positive and potentially limiting values. The framework has a formal professional accreditation ecosystem: Barrett Values Centre grants the Certified Values Coach and Cultural Transformation Tools (CTT) Practitioner certifications to professionals qualified to apply the model; the International Coaching Federation (ICF) recognizes CTT as an accredited tool in its executive coaching programs; and Human Synergistics offers the Culture and Climate Assessment Certification for organizational culture diagnostic.
Cultural fit assessment. The alignment between the individual's values and the organization's values is one of the most robust predictors of job satisfaction, sustained engagement, and long-term retention. The analysis specifically maps which personal values are present in the current organizational culture (alignment zone — source of natural engagement), which are absent (friction zone — source of chronic dissatisfaction), and which are non-negotiable for the individual (values whose suppression generates genuine suffering versus values with flexible and adaptable expression). This information enables role and environment assignment decisions that maximize engagement without requiring personality or value changes.
Satisfaction prediction and turnover risk. Non-negotiable values that find no expression in the current environment constitute the most direct predictor of voluntary turnover. An individual whose core value of Self-Direction has no space in a culture of heavy procedural regulation will present increasing dissatisfaction regardless of compensation, leader relationship, or physical conditions. The analysis identifies these pressure points before they manifest as disengagement or resignation, enabling preventive interventions: role reassignment, autonomy adjustment, or explicit acknowledgment that cultural fit is limited.
Role alignment and growth. The values profile complements competency and personality assessments with a dimension these do not capture: the deep motivation that will determine whether a person invests discretionary energy in the role or simply meets requirements. Two people with equivalent technical competencies and similar personality profiles may have radically different value systems — one motivated by personal achievement and recognition, another by contribution and social impact — and that difference will determine which thrives in the organization's specific culture and which experiences progressive erosion of engagement.
Leadership development. Barrett center of gravity and personal entropy provide a motivational maturity diagnostic directly applicable to leadership development plans. Leaders whose entropy exceeds 20% generate cultures that replicate their protection patterns: the leader who operates from control generates dependent teams; the one who operates from approval generates cultures where no one speaks uncomfortable truths; the one who avoids conflict generates teams where problems accumulate without resolution. Reducing a leader's personal entropy is one of the highest-return organizational interventions available.
High-performance team composition. Value diversity within a team is as relevant as competency diversity. A team where everyone prioritizes Conservation will lack innovative drive. A team where everyone prioritizes Openness to Change will lack stability and follow-through. Values analysis enables assembling teams with deliberate motivational complementarity — not just people who "get along" but people whose deep motivations generate the productive tension that drives high performance.
The report provides a motivational diagnostic structured in sections with direct applicability for talent decisions.
The Core Values Profile section presents the individual's five to seven dominant values with observable behavioral indicators and optimal environment conditions for each — information directly usable for role assignment and environment design decisions. The Schwartz Dimensional Analysis maps the motivational orientation on the circular model, identifies tensions between opposing poles, and translates these tensions into concrete implications for performance in different types of roles and organizational cultures.
The Barrett Levels of Consciousness Analysis reveals the motivational center of gravity, distribution by level, and the presence or absence of the critical Transformation bridge (Level 4). The Entropy and Limiting Values section identifies fear-based protection patterns with their specific organizational impact: what type of culture each pattern generates, which competencies it compromises, and which development interventions mitigate it. The Cultural Alignment section compares the individual's values with the organizational environment to identify zones of natural fit, friction zones, and non-negotiable values. The Development Plan closes with specific motivational alignment and entropy reduction objectives with behavioral indicators and follow-up mechanisms.
This assessment is especially valuable in role-alignment and development work where cultural fit is determinant for long-term retention and engagement, in job satisfaction diagnostics where the causes of dissatisfaction are not attributable to objective conditions (compensation, workload, leader relationship) but to deep motivational misalignment, in leadership development programs where the leader's motivational maturity is a critical factor for team culture, in succession planning where a person's capacity to operate from purpose and contribution under pressure needs to be understood, and in turnover reduction interventions where repeated disengagement patterns suggest systemic cultural misalignment. It is recommended as a complement to DISC (how the individual behaves), Big Five (underlying personality structure), Enneagram (unconscious motivation and defense patterns), and Multiple Intelligences (learning and contribution channels) for a four-layer motivational diagnostic.
What empirical support does it have for talent decisions? Shalom Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values is one of the most replicated theories in social psychology. Its most cited refinement — Schwartz et al. (2012), "Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — consolidated the circumplex structure of the ten values based on samples from more than seventy countries; earlier studies such as Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) established the model's convergent validity against other motivational taxonomies. The Barrett model has been applied in more than six thousand global organizations with data from more than six million individual assessments, and Rock and Grant (2016) in Harvard Business Review documented the relationship between value diversity and team performance in corporate settings. Research establishes that the alignment between personal values and organizational culture is a significant predictor of job satisfaction, engagement, and retention, complementary to — and in many cases superior to — personality and competency measures. As with any assessment tool, it is recommended for use within a comprehensive battery and never as the sole decision criterion.
How is the individual's data obtained? The system accepts data in four formats: ranked list of values with optional identification of limiting values (preferred format), structured results from Barrett CTT assessments with personal values and organizational culture, scores from Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) on any numerical scale, and free-text declarations about priorities and motivations. The inclusion of potentially limiting values significantly enriches the entropy analysis. No birth data or external calculations are required.
How does it relate to traditional competency assessment? Competency assessments measure what the individual knows and can do. Personality assessments measure how they tend to behave. Values analysis measures why they behave that way — the motivational layer that determines whether competencies are deployed with energy and engagement or executed mechanically without discretionary investment. An individual with high leadership competencies but values misaligned with organizational culture will present declining performance as intrinsic motivation erodes. The integration of competencies, personality, and values provides the most complete talent diagnostic available.
What ethical considerations apply to the use of this assessment? Values are inherently personal and should not be used as an exclusionary filtering criterion. There are no "correct" or "incorrect" values — there are values more or less aligned with a specific organizational culture. The analysis should be used to optimize role and environment assignment, not to discriminate or stigmatize. Potentially limiting values are not character flaws but adaptive patterns that can be transformed with appropriate development. The confidentiality of declared values must be respected with the same rigor as any sensitive personal data.
Vocational and chronobiological professional analysis for developing people in the SME.
Comprehensive evaluation of leadership and organizational culture.