Experience story: are values the measures of freedom?

27.08.2025 – Äripäev Leadership Conference “Coaching 2025: FREEDOM” – Shared Experience

If an organization’s value is, for example, openness, is it openness to the fullest? Or is there an invisible limit to how open one can be? Even agreed-upon values can conflict with each other. Perhaps organizational values should be seen as a matrix with scales. Sten’s experience suggests that this can be a useful solution to avoid misunderstandings.

Many of you work in organizations with defined values, some even displayed on the walls. Values are the foundation of culture. They can foster collaboration—or destroy it. I have seen this in my 20-year leadership journey. Today, I share my experience of how values, meant to be bridges connecting us, can also be used as weapons.

In 2003, I worked at EMT as Head of Services.

I was responsible, for the first time, for opening the gate at Õllesummer with a mobile phone—a highly innovative solution at the time. As is often the case with new systems, a problem arose: over 150 people had been waiting for a long time. I arrived just as people were very angry and ready to criticize us publicly.

I stepped forward and said: “I am from EMT and take responsibility for this situation.” I honestly explained that the gate works, but due to overload, it is slow, and if we proceed calmly, everyone will get through. Most people calmed down, some received an umbrella as an apology, and a few of the angriest were gently guided aside.

I am convinced that without this approach, EMT would have suffered significant reputational damage. This story characterizes me as a person—direct, open, passionate, caring, and responsible. Later in my leadership career, I was the one who would speak up when something was wrong, praise when it was good, and address the in-between. I took responsibility, never blamed others. And it worked—at least for a while. As a young leader, my superpower was honesty, directness, and passion. The results were good. I believed that such openness and directness were the basis for growth. I was a good leader.

In 2008, I accepted a new challenge - Director of a nearly 300-person division at Eesti Energia.

It was a strategic role. Our task was to transform a stagnant monopoly into a competitive company in the electricity market. It was a huge change and a 7-year wild, exciting, and successful journey: we exceeded market share targets, provided clarity to clients, and shifted employees’ mindsets. Early on, however, I made a mistake. I realized we needed a clear strategy and vision, and I wrote it down alone in the forest over five days. I presented the plan to the team—they nodded… and we started. After building open communication in the team, without taboos, the team finally said: “This strategy is good, but it’s yours, not ours.” I had not listened or involved the team.

It was a painful realization.

Without listening, one cannot be a good leader. This was a turning point. I began consciously listening and involving the team, truly understanding their perspective, and explaining the rationale behind my decisions. The ultimate leap came when I trained as a coach—not for the title, but to dramatically improve my listening skills. Today, I don’t need to force myself to listen; knowing its power, I do it naturally and can listen so fully that my own thoughts fade away.

This journey changed my values - not in content, but in depth.

I began listening to understand, not to respond. My openness became two-way: I didn’t just open myself, but created space for others to open as well. I realized that openness without listening is a monologue, and monologues rarely inspire.

I was confident in my leadership style—I was told I was a caring and demanding leader. I cared about people and results. It was a compliment. I have always believed—and still do—that a leader should care about people so they can succeed, and be demanding so they succeed greatly. After Eesti Energia, I successfully led different divisions, achieving high team ratings, satisfaction scores of 70–80, and strong business results.

Then someone said to me in another company: “Sten, you are too forceful.” Me—the people person, open, passionate, honest, responsible. I acted in line with agreed-upon values. How could openness become an attack? This confusion led me to ask: is my strength my weakness, or is society becoming too soft, where we only tiptoe around issues? Who then delivers results if we merely peek gently at problems? Or is it a matter of differing interpretations of values?

I believe that people generally come to work to do good work. One exception: once an employee stole an air conditioner from the office and installed it at home. Clearly, different motivators. But generally, people are good and want to do their work well. I believe in people.

In the same organization, there was a situation where client inquiries about technical issues surged, but the technical manager claimed all metrics were green.

I asked: “Are we measuring the wrong things?” To me, this was an honest and genuine hypothesis - a sign of openness and willingness to solve a problem. To him, it sounded like an attack on him and his team. Later, I realized I could have asked differently: “Please help me understand what and how we measure - have client expectations changed?” The content would be the same, but the tone gentler. Yet, in another case, asking directly worked perfectly. Both approaches stemmed from the agreed values: openness and honesty.

I understood that my OPENNESS may not feel like openness to someone else. Same value - two perceptions. For me, openness equals honesty and bridge-building. For them, openness equals attack and defense. As a leader, it is my duty to notice this - because if collaboration goes defensive, development stops. Then we don’t solve; we delay.

Why is this important?

If value interpretation is vague, people can hide behind them, avoid responsibility, and blame others. And when these games begin, collaboration ends.

Hence the idea: VALUES ARE NOT ABSOLUTES—they can be measured with a simple 3-point scale.

Think of a core value in your company that is strongly emphasized. Now, consider your number for this value on a scale of 1 to 3:

• Number 1 means: This VALUE defines you. It’s your strength, your super-value.
• Number 2 means: You embody this value. It is natural to you, you care about it, but you are not always at the forefront defending it.
• Number 3 means: You accept this value, are not against it, but it’s not central to your inner world.

If you don’t accept it at all, you’re in the wrong organization.

This scale does not judge - it creates clarity.

Imagine “open communication” is a company value. I am a “1.” Another is “2.” Another is “3.” We all act as if we are “1s” because the value is displayed on the wall. This creates a façade of culture. Real openness is absent if people fear their true number is unacceptable. Some are naturally 1, some 2, and that is OK—if everyone, including the leader, knows it.

When I, a level-1 openness leader, give feedback to a level-2 or level-3 person, I adjust my message so it can be received. I don’t change who I am, but I care about the recipient. Communication with a level-1 colleague is faster and more direct. This prevents hiding behind differing interpretations of values.

Ask yourself—what is your number for a common value like openness, passion, or innovation? Ask your colleague—what is theirs? You are not measuring the person, but the connection.

Are VALUES a measure of freedom?

Yes. but only if we dare to measure them honestly. Dare to say where we truly are, not where we “should” be. Values do not kill collaboration, but misused values can hurt. To build a strong culture, we must see values as a precisely defined matrix, not slogans on the wall. Then values become bridges of trust and collaboration - not weapons.

Thank you!