What's in this template
Five candidate values in a ranked-choice format. Ranking forces the trade-off that makes values meaningful — a list where everything is equally important is not a list of values.
Why ranking is the only honest format
Values that cost nothing aren't values
If every candidate scores highly, you've learned nothing. Ranking forces people to say what they'd sacrifice, which is what a value actually is.
Announced values get ignored
A values statement the team had no part in producing gets treated as decoration. One they ranked gets quoted back in decisions.
The gap is the interesting part
Run it with leadership and with the wider team separately. Where the two rankings diverge is the most useful conversation this exercise will produce.
Anonymity changes the answer
People rank the CEO's favourite value first when their name is attached. Run it anonymously or don't bother running it.
Run it in three steps
List five to seven candidates
Include ones that genuinely trade off against each other — speed against thoroughness, for instance.
Run it anonymously
Leave name collection off. Values exercises are where deference distorts results most.
Compare leadership against the team
Two separate polls, same options. The divergence is the finding.