Hidden Power Dynamics (Mutuality): The Ambiguity of Organisational Values

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

When an organisation says, ‘we believe in cooperation — your voice matters,’ should we believe them? It sounds progressive, considerate and fair. Mutuality, as an example, is a valuable tool to understand others, gain perspective and influence new creative directions. Great, right? But what if this perceived enlightenment is simply disguising a tool for power? What happens when the ambiguity is more powerful than the practice itself, when the meaning of a corporation’s value becomes fuzzy? Beneath the comforting notion that power is symmetrical, or ethical and benefit is evenly distributed, something more human and complex is happening.  

Recent findings studying the framing of mutuality as a central moral compass within a company found that mutuality did not mean just one thing, but often many (sometimes contradictory) things. Senior executives perceive it as enlightened capitalism, where a shared benefit will endure. To middle managers, mutuality looks like a softener to hard decisions, and to those whose livelihoods depend on the company’s supply chain, mutuality offered different meanings, from being perceived as genuine support to feeling like obligation masquerading as opportunity. Each meaning is convenient to the person using it.

This research also discovered that ambiguity in corporate values is not considered a flaw, but a feature, able to morph and adapt, moving through the organisation unchallenged. Ambiguity keeps people comfortable, through finding their own meaning, but it also keeps power invisible.

In this example, mutuality can become a shelter for multiple interpretations, outwardly seeming as though an organisation is unified, when privately, with people projecting whatever meaning is suitable to their roles, misaligns beliefs and perpetuates disagreement within values. Where the most manipulation occurs is when it is used as a negotiation tool, providing a moral cover in the instance that an initiative fails or tensions rise; used as a story to reassure and reframe. Yet it is not manipulation in deep seeded intent, but in something culturally ingrained; ambiguity avoids discomfit, the perception of shared values masks asymmetry we are scared to see. The question is not whether or not organisations do this, but whether it will be admitted.

The reality is, despite perhaps initial good intentions, when a value like mutuality becomes ambiguous, it stops being a commitment and starts being a prop, a substitute for the real thing. It’s marketed, it’s moral branding and aesthetic ethics, but it loses meaning if it remains at the surface doesn’t continue to the core.  

So what might it look like to the average professional?

It may be the promise of collaboration, but only if everyone agrees without a fight.

It’s the discourse around ‘wellbeing’ while people are celebrated for overworking.

It’s the perception of empowerment when the decision rights ultimately lie with someone else.

The paradox is that ambiguous values do unite organisations, creating cohesion, boosting morale, developing identity. People can collaborate under a shared banner. But as with most dubious practices, the shadow emerges;

ambiguity creates more blind spots, more pressure points, more illusions of morality. The gap between story and reality needs to be interrogated, or there is risk that people will avoid speaking the truth in case it’s perceived as betrayal. That is where the value stops shaping the organisation and starts protecting it from self-awareness.

As with everything ambiguous, it’s hard to spot. Are there values people adhere to daily but can’t be defined? Who truly benefits from the ambiguity and who carries the cost? What are the real motives behind the softening of a difficult truth?

Values are essential, in corporations and in day to day life. They allow people to stand firm, to not drift; it is not about shaming organisations for using values imperfectly. The practices evolve when values become more than moral wallpaper, when people learn to interrogate the story they have been told and the one they retell, is the meaning clear or just convenient? It is not about exposing hypocrisy but about reclaiming sincerity, understanding the impact of misaligned perception and it’s affect on others.

From a depth psychology perspective, the ambiguity of corporate values like mutuality reflects more than organisational strategy; it reveals the collective shadow of the organisation. For leaders, the psyche wants to project noble intention, it wants to be viewed as effective and elevating an idealised value with vague meaning allows the avoidance of uncomfortable inner contradictions. It allows people to be right, to retain hierarchal structure, and protect the ego. Ambiguous values can function like archetypal symbols, emotionally potent yet resistant to precise definition. Employees can identify for a moralised identity, that the organisation they work for is principled, and the less flattering motives can remain out of conscious awareness. Until the gap between promoted values and subsequent behaviour is consciously owned, values do not act as ethical commitments but as defence mechanisms, protecting corporate ego from confrontation with its own complexity.  

For the full research paper, published in Dialectical Anthropology, 2019, find the link here:

The ambiguity of mutuality: discourse and power in corporate value regimes | Dialectical Anthropology

Follow The Heretic for perspectives on common workplace practices and their hidden effects