EXPLoRiNG THE RELATioNSHiP BETWEEN oRGANiZATioNAL VALUES ANd SMALL TEAM PERFoRMANCE: A dELPHi METHod APPLiCATioN

The objective of this article is to examine the relationships between organizational values and the performance indicators of an organization. Two work teams were analyzed in a restaurant. To achieve the objective, a Delphi method was developed that allowed knowing the level of consensus of the members of the teams studied among a group of previously identified values, allowing to identify those values that had greater importance and regulation for each team. Through the Mann-Whitney statistical test, the relationship between values and customer satisfaction and productivity were examined, aspects that were measured in the organization studied for each work shift, where the teams analyzed worked. The research made it possible to prove the relationship between values and customer satisfaction directly and productivity indirectly, demonstrating that the work team showed greater consensus on its values in terms of importance and level of regulation showed better results in the dependent variables analyzed. The research carried out allowed the quantitative validation of the hypothesis that the shared values that regulate the behavior of the employees studied are closely related to the performance indicators.

organization, particularly when working with small teams since it is easier to get them to be shared by everyone (Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Calabuig et al., 2018;Friedman, 2018).
One of the pioneering investigations in approaching from the point of view of practical work to the subject that was addressed, was oriented to a test to determine the values, preferences and interests of people and the relative predominance of some over others (Allport & Vernon, 1931), then continued efforts to understand the importance of the values of individuals in organizations around the world (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). In recent years, research has been highlighted that has constituted foundations for the development of the subject both theoretically and methodologically and empirically (Blanchard, 2001;Dolan & Garcia, 2002;Blanchard et al., 2003;Dolan et al., 2006;Dolan & Altman, 2012).
Organizational values represent the basic convictions of what is right, acceptable or desirable; They constitute the philosophical and motivational framework of behavior within both the social and professional organization, guiding the decision-making and professional practice of an individual or team (Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Özçelik et al., 2016;Elliott, 2017;Calabuig et al., 2018;Erkus & Dinc, 2018). When the values of an organization are shared by all its members, they are more likely to have an impact on motivation, satisfaction and individual and collective performance (James, 2014; Akerlof, 2017;Erkus & Dinc, 2018;Friedman, 2018;Ralston et al., 2018).
In the literature reviewed, the study of the teams has been associated with diverse topics (Klein et al., 2011;Cooper, 2013;Easton & Rosenzweig, 2015;Kirkman et al., 2016;Kölle, 2017;Drouvelis et al., 2017;Friedman, 2018;Kalmanovich-Cohen et al., 2018;). However, the authors consider that the study of values in the context of the teams could enrich the research for both topics. As far as it is known, related research is not abundant in the Ecuadorian context.
One reason why there has been so little progress in the implementation of valuebased administration is the insufficient understanding of the subject, its intangible nature makes it not easily quantifiable (Thekdi & Aven, 2018), which exposes difficulties at the time of facing his study. In addition, members of organizations do not always have a common definition of what the values recognized in the organization mean (Erkus & Dinc, 2018;Pendleton, 2018), which, if it is not clear to everyone, could lead to distortions at the time of its study and implementation. The objective of the research is to study how the shared values of a work team impact on individual and collective performance.

LiTERATURE REViEW
The issue of organizational values has become a buzzword; but the way to put it into practice and the impact that this would have, both individually and organizationally, is often unclear and changing (Lee et al., 2016). As a result, members of a team that think they share a group of values actually act in a fragmented way based on how they interpret the values they think they share and this has their respective effect on performance (Dyląg et al., 2013;James, 2014;Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Ng, 2015;Elliott, 2017;Calabuig et al., 2018;Pendleton, 2018).
Organizational values form the subjective and internal side of the culture, as a way of implementing the organizational culture, they are a critical determinant of the behavior of the members of the organization and their results, guiding people in achieving objectives commons (Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Kirkman et al., 2016;Lee et al., 2016;Özçelik et al., 2016;Akerlof, 2017). Congruence between organizational values among team members can help develop positive work attitudes and improve employee satisfaction and commitment which would contribute to better performance (James, 2014;Özçelik et al., 2016;Elliott, 2017;Fogarty et al., 2017). The literature consulted includes research that shows how the functioning of work teams is influenced by the values they believe they share (James, 2014;Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Easton & Rosenzweig, 2015;Martin & Good, 2015;Ng, 2015;Kirkman et al., 2016). However, for the effect of the values to be positive it is necessary that they be shared, otherwise it may promote the disconnection between the actions of the team members and the possible results to be achieved (Cooper, 2013;Dyląg et al., 2013).
This makes it necessary to evaluate the general pattern of values that a team member perceives, since in reality their work tends to be characterized by a combination of different values (Colley et al., 2013;Cheng et al., 2013).
The desired values arise from the underlying beliefs to which the members of the organization subscribe, and although they can predict what people will do, they may differ from what people really do (Dolan & Garcia, 2003;Robbins & Judge, 2013;Akerlof, 2017;Spieth et al., 2018). They can remain as isolated values and although they are the first step to reach the shared ones, but not always an isolated value becomes shared.
Promulgating values means spreading them and developing the administrative process in such a way that they transcend desire, aligning practices with values and creating incentive mechanisms and control of the behavior and performance of the organization in the context of values (Blanchard et al., 2003;Michailova & Minbaeva, 2012). This can make more and more individual criteria match those of the group becoming shared values. However, these shared values must be considered when acting, if this is not the case, they will not be considered behavioral regulators.
Only if they are internalized by individuals and become motivational configurations, do organizational values become actionable and regulating, influencing and determining the performance levels of team members and contributing to the achievement of the established objectives (Dolan & Garcia, 2002;Dolan et al., 2006;Díaz Llorca, 2009;Dolan & Altman, 2012;Michailova & Minbaeva, 2012). A logic of the above described is seen in Figure 1.
This internalization encourages the creation of a shared understanding that certain behavior patterns are more desirable and accepted as ways in which team members should act, and forms a subjective norm about a certain behavior that contributes to the achievement of the established objectives (Dolan & Garcia, 2002;Dolan et al., 2006;Dolan & Altman, 2012;Michailova & Minbaeva, 2012).
There are various classifications of values, in this research the authors subscribe to the one that groups them into final or results (of a smaller nature in terms of number) or instrumental or process (a greater number of them) (Blanchard, 2001;Dolan & Garcia, 2002;Blanchard et al., 2003;Dolan & Garcia, 2003;Dolan et al., 2006;Dolan & Altman, 2012). This is because it is considered that this classification is better suited to the context of organizations. Both final and instrumental values constitute critical success factors around which the objectives revolve giving meaning to the action. If the work team does not achieve its objectives, it is due, among other factors, to the fact that the values of its members are not in line with their results (Dolan & Garcia, 2003;Khazanchi et al., 2007;Dolan & Altman, 2012;Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Values have content and intensity attributes. The content attribute expresses that a particular value is important and the intensity attribute specifies how important the value is (Dolan & García, 2003;Dolan & Altman, 2012;Robbins & Judge, 2013). When the values are classified in terms of these attributes, the existing value system can be known. Clarifying organizational values is a complex process with a strong integrating power to understand the work of individuals and teams.
Taking into account the complexity and diversity of work today, the use of work teams has become increasingly common, with numerous investigations on the subject being found in the literature (Klein et al., 2011;Drouvelis et al., 2017;Kölle, 2017;Calabuig et al., 2018;Friedman, 2018).
Organizations have come to work teams as a way to better utilize the talents of their employees and increase their motivation by leveraging their flexibility to the tasks that must be performed (Robbins & Judge, 2013). A work team generates a positive synergy through a coordinated effort, but this requires that certain values that agglutinate the behavior be shared. When team members have different values, they assume different assumptions and expectations about their and others' behavior, which makes it difficult to collaborate and coordinate with each other and achieve, as a team, the expected results (Khazanchi et al., 2007;Klein et al., 2011). This is because members of a team tend to feel greater satisfaction when they interact with their peers if they have similar values, opinions and beliefs developing a shared team identity and a sense of belonging, and find it unpleasant to interact with others who have values markedly different (Klein et al., 2011;Robbins & Judge, 2013). Despite the central role that values play in organizations, there is not much research on their effects on team performance (Klein et al., 2011;Friedman, 2018).
Teams, being small, can usually develop the cohesion, commitment and mutual responsibility necessary to achieve better performance. This is why the investigation of values in the context of teams tends to be effective since there is a greater possibility of sharing values among few people than among many (Robbins & Judge, 2013;Çiçek & Biçer, 2015;Calabuig et al., 2018;Friedman, 2018). Similarly, for there to be agreement on what and how each member should do in a balanced manner, how to resolve conflicts and make decisions and how to achieve the expected results requires that there is an agreement or consensus among team members on the values to assess the importance of common objectives and performance expectations (Dobni et al., 2000;Cha & Edmondson, 2006;Khazanchi et al., 2007).

Sample
Participants included 18 employees of a small business in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Ecuador, which operates with two teams that work shifts on alternate days, with hours between 12 noon and 10 pm. Because of their size and way of developing their work, these teams classify as selfadministered work teams, their members assume responsibilities such as assignments, work organization and control (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Both teams, made up of nine individuals, consist of 77% men and 23% women. The average age is 26 years. When constituting relatively homogeneous teams from the age point of view, the existence of intergenerational differences is not considered when studying organizational values (Erkus & Dinc, 2018). The charges identified are: one cashier, one chef, three assistants, three waiters and one doorman.

Procedure
For the study, the Delphi method is applied, a procedure to systematically request and collate the opinions of individuals on a given topic through sequential individual interrogations, related to an original primary question, usually through questioning. The method allows to determine the consensus or convergence of opinions by constantly using the feedback of the results to the participants (Ludlow, 2002;Mitroff & Turoff, 2002;Turoff, 2002).
To assess the level of consensus, the coefficient of concordance is determined whose most accepted criterion is that there is consensus when C ≥ 75% is met (García Vidal & Zayas Miranda, 2010). The way to calculate it is using the following formula. (1) Where: -C: Coefficient of concordance -Vn: Negative votes -Vt: Total votes.
The method will be developed through seven rounds. The first three both teams will be considered as one only from the fourth each work team will be considered a set of analysis. The method will be developed as follows.

First round
Each member of both teams was contacted, their cooperation was requested and the objective of the investigation and the details necessary for their work were presented. The importance of their individual work and the arguments for their consideration as experts were expressed, taking into account their knowledge of what was investigated. Each member is asked the following question: What are the values that should characterize teamwork and that would have a positive impact on performance? Written responses are received from the 18 individuals and duplicate values are eliminated leaving a final list of the exposed values. With this list, Table 1 is prepared.
This list could be interpreted as the individual values desired by the individuals that make up the work teams.

Second round
Each individual is sent a document that shows the values summarized in Table 1 and the second question is presented: What values do you think should guide the way we interact with each other as a team and that would contribute to success with our customers? Mark with an X your criteria. If you do not find the value in the list useful or convenient, please mark them with an N. The responses of the 18 individuals are received and Table 2 is prepared.
This list could be interpreted as the values shared by the individuals that make up the work teams.

Third round
The values resulting from the previous round are given to team members with the third question: What does this value mean to us? This step is intended to explain what each value really means for individuals. Once the answers have been obtained, an attempt is made to synthesize individual understanding, seeking shared understanding through the declaration of clear and direct explanations of how these values will be seen, experienced and lived in the workplace (Friedman, 2018). In this same round, the analysis of the statements presented is requested to determine if there is agreement under the same criteria used in round two.

Fourth round
As of this round, two analysis groups are used, which constitute the two teams studied. Each individual is sent a document showing the values with their meaning and the fourth question to be assessed is presented: Which are considered final and which are instrumental? Place "F" for the finals and "I" for the instrumentals. In this test the values are classified as final and instrumental and 66 G.   (1) (2021) Table 3.
The team analysis is carried out of what values are classified as final and instrumental based on the existing agreement following the criteria of second round.

Fifth round
Here we proceed to weigh the values by the team members. Each of the participants was provided with a list with the values resulting from previous steps in order to establish an order of importance. The following question is sent to individuals: What importance weight would it give to each of the values? You must give 1 to the one you consider most important and "n" the least, with "n" being the maximum amount of values resulting from the previous steps. You may consider that some factors have equal weight or relative importance. The answers are received, which are shown in Table 4.
(2) Where: In this step, the range correlation coefficient (r´) is calculated for the two groups of ranges of both teams using the formula: ( 3) This formula defines the correlation coefficient of ranges. There are no ties between the ranges, d i represents the difference between the ranges and n represents the number of pairs of observations.

Sixth round
Since the average weight of the value can take a number in decimal numbers, to send experts the average weight, a discrete order 67 G.   (1) (2021) Table 5 is used for this round. These values are classified in order of importance to them.

Seventh round
Once the importance of each value for the team members has been identified, the following question is sent: How do the values analyzed influence their work behavior? Use the scale Always (5) Almost always (4) Sometimes (3) Almost never (2) Never (1). Table 6 is used. Where: If the value obtains results above 4 points, the value is regulatory. If it gets between 2 and 3 it is shared and below 2 points it is isolated. With this round the Delphi method culminates. Table 7 is prepared with the elements found.
This table would allow the construction of a double entry graph for the final evaluation of the value system in the equipment studied. After studying the value system of the equipment analyzed, its effect on its performance is determined. The restaurant's performance is systematically evaluated by several indicators such as: productivity, customer satisfaction, number of customers served, repeat customers and production costs.
For the purposes of the study, it is decided as part of the methodology, based on the values that are regulators to select which performance indicators to use to make the comparison between both work teams and their relationship with the values. The Kruskal -Wallis test will be applied to the selected indicator, which constitutes a nonparametric alternative to compare whether there are differences between the measures 68 G.   (1) (2021)    of central tendency of two or more populations and the assumption of normality and equality of variances is not justified (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952). The Kruskal-Wallis test statistic is given by the formula (3) The null hypothesis for the Kruskal-Wallis test is that there is no difference between treatments (μ1 = μ2 =…. = Μc), while the alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between at least a couple of treatments (μi ≠ μj). The test is developed with the use of IBM SPSS 23. For the analysis of the effect of the values with the performance, the variable hip understood as sales between numbers of employees will be assumed.

RESULTS
The list of the individual values desired by the individuals that make up the work teams was extensive, each individual independently and freely expressed those values that they considered should characterize teamwork and that would have a positive impact on their performance.
As expected, many individuals agreed on some values so the list was reduced to avoid duplication, leaving 38 values that are interpreted as those that the members want to manifest in their behavior within the team. This list was sent again to measure the level of consensus among study participants on the basis of issuing criteria that express their consideration of those values that should guide the way they interact with each other as a team and that would contribute to success with customers. The results are shown in Table 8. These resulting values could be interpreted as the desired values that should characterize teamwork according to the criteria of the individuals participating in the study.
The values on which consensus was found in the previous round were provided to individuals to reflect on what each value meant for each individual thus avoiding discordant interpretations that result in divergent behavior. It is important that each individual understand the meaning of value to understand how they should behave based on it. After collecting the ideas and synthesizing them in clear and direct explanations of how they will experience and live in value in the team and analyzed the existence of agreement in the expressions presented they were expressed as observed in  Van ordered from highest to lowest consensus: From this round, the two teams studied are analyzed in order to know which values are considered final and which ones are instrumental. The results are shown in Table  10.
There is a coincidence between the two teams classified as final efficiency, quality and innovation values. The rest are considered instrumental. Team members assigned weights to the resulting values. The results are shown in Table 11.
To determine if the differences found between the studied equipment is significant, the correlation of Spearman's rank order is calculated. With the information in Table 11 we proceed to calculate r´ for the two groups of ranges of both teams (See Table 12).
The disagreement between the teams studied is highlighted with the calculated indicator. Despite working in the same institution and having the same work objectives, the teams have different work philosophies, which is reflected in the existence of divergent value scales. With the weights according to the discrete order from the most important to the smallest, the individuals of both teams express their level according to the weights obtained (See Table  13).  once the importance weights of the values have been reevaluated and consensus has been reached. As it could be seen, there is consensus in the value system in which the work of both teams is based, but Team 2 has lower levels of consensus than those of Team 1. Once the importance of each value has been identified for the members of each team proceeds to analyze the level of regulation of the values taking into account their influence on the performance of their work (See Table 15).
With the results obtained, Table 16 is prepared. This table allows the construction of the double entry graphs for the final evaluation of the value system in the equipment studied (See Figure 2).  Achievement of greater economic results without affecting quality. Collaboration: The team's work is the expression of everyone's involvement in achieving the final objective. Responsibility: Each team member is responsible for their actions in the process of providing the service that is expected of each. Commitment: Each team member complies with what has been entrusted to achieve the expected results. Quality: It is expressed in the satisfaction of our customers with the service provided. Sense of belonging: Team members maintain a positive attitude towards their colleagues, in whom they are reflected by expressing support for the team. Exchange of information: All team members exchange the necessary information, both on the tastes and preferences of customers and internally of the organization, so that the final results can be achieved. Trust: Team members will be able to act according to the team's values in the various situations that may arise in customer service and the development of their operations. Loyalty: Each team member expresses respect and loyalty to team values and to the commitments established to achieve the objectives. Results award: The rewards derived from the work will be based on the results achieved by the team taking as reference the established goals. Participation: The decisions taken in the team will be taken taking into account the opinions of its members which can be freely expressed. Equity: Work awards will be established based on what each one deserves based on their results as an employee. Support: The team relies on the relationships between its members which will protect each other, but also rely on the criteria to identify successes and failures in the development of their work. Innovation: Team members are motivated to modify those that affect personal and organizational performance in order to improve or renew ways of developing a better job. Acceptance of challenges: The search for new opportunities to improve work and customer service will be encouraged and rewarded by setting goals that imply a greater effort than has been made. Internal harmony: Friendship is a norm in the team prevailing good relationships in the workplace. Respect: The criteria of each team member are taken into account even if they do not coincide with them as a sign of frank behavior in the face of differences. Sacrifice: Each team member will develop the effort necessary to achieve the defined objectives. Professionalism: Team members will carry out their work in such a way that their experience, expertise and way of acting minimize customer dissatisfaction. Empowerment: Each team member has total autonomy to solve problems that may prevent customer satisfaction.      As you can see, the coincidence between both teams in any of the quadrants is low. The quadrant of important values and high level of regulation is the determinant for the fulfillment of the objectives of this investigation, since it contains the most important values that have a regulatory nature of the behavior. In this case, both teams have in common the value of efficiency and quality; However, Team 1 in addition to the previous values within this quadrant shows others such as responsibility, collaboration and innovation.
According to current service trends, it is recognized that innovation, responsibility and collaboration are decisive for the provision of a quality service. Based on the above, it was decided to select as performance indicators of the restaurant to compare the performance of both teams: the indicator of customer satisfaction and productivity, the latter being considered an expression of customer satisfaction in services (Dobni et al., 2000;Calabuig et al., 2018). To this end, the indicator proposed by Sánchez Rodríguez (2017) was applied, which is based on the application of a customer satisfaction survey with the attributes of the service and the determination of the level of satisfaction with the expression (4).
(4) Where: -Sc: Customer satisfaction n: Number of service attributes evaluated -Iri: Relative importance of attribute i, is determined by applying the Kendall matching method -Vai: Assessment of the status of the attribute, is determined by applying a survey assessing the status of attributes to customers. 75 G. García-Vidal / SJM 16 (1) (2021) 61 -83 Table 17 shows the satisfaction analysis for the first month of the year in the restaurant analyzed for Team 1.
The relative importance was determined by applying Kendall's method of agreement to 12 customers, selected from among the most repeated of the service. The valuation was determined by the application of the service valuation survey to 300 customers per month based on convenience sampling, in which the selection of the respondents was based on the criteria of the researchers, taking into account presence at the appropriate place and time. This type of sampling was considered useful for exploring the level of customer satisfaction.
Productivity was determined as the result of the sales ratio of the month and the number of workers, see formula 5.

Figure 2. Regulation level and importance order
Where: -Pt: Productivity -V: Sales -Ct: Number of workers. Table 18 summarizes the levels of satisfaction and productivity of both work teams in the 12 months a year. The differences between both teams regarding satisfaction and productivity are represented in Figure 3.
To determine whether the difference between the two teams, taking into account that the variables analyzed is statistically significant, the p-value is compared with the level of significance. In the case at hand, a level of significance of 0.05 is assumed, indicating a 5% risk of concluding that there is a difference when there is no real difference between the productivity of both teams and the customer satisfaction. As in both cases the p-value is lower than the level of significance, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis and it can be concluded that the difference in the levels of productivity and customer satisfaction with the service provided by the teams is statistically significant. . Despite the differences shown between both teams, it was also found that while the satisfaction with the service provided is greater there is a tendency to increase productivity (see Figure 4). From this figure, it can be concluded that there is a significant level of association between satisfaction and productivity.

CoNCLUSioNS
Shared values can serve as a basis for a positive and high performance culture. It is important that everyone in the organization develop a mutual understanding of them and then become an integral part of their daily work experience, favoring the performance of small teams (Friedman, 2018).
In the analysis carried out, it was possible to see how the shared values can differ between work teams that work in different conditions, and in turn how their presence and the degree of regulation that they reach in the behavior of the workers can be manifested in the indicators of performance.
Since restaurants must make repeated changes in their offer to avoid customer boredom (Line & Hanks, 2018) and reactivate the hedonic stimulus that generates much of the demand (Brown, 2020) and these changes will be more effective in the as innovation becomes more entrenched. On the other hand, it is also recognized that waiting time is one of the fundamental attributes in customer satisfaction (Zhang et al., 2012) and in their loyalty to the place; and due to the way in which a restaurant operates to meet the variable demand in quantity and characteristics of the requests made to the staff, it is vital to develop the spirit of collaboration within the lounge staff and this with the kitchen staff. Similarly, the relationship between customer satisfaction and productivity levels corresponded to the results of previous research (Dobni et al., 2000;Calabuig et al., 2018).
All of the above validates the idea that achieving shared values and that they are regulators of behavior as well as being closely related to performance indicators is important to achieve business success. Which was possible to validate in this investigation.
Corresponding to the above, it is clear that having tools that allow management to identify what values can be useful to influence performance indicators and monitor their achievement should allow them to design strategies that strengthen their manifestation in labor groups and in this way, to have another management tool that contributes to the achievement of the defined organizational objectives.

Figure 4. Relations between customer satisfaction and productivity
The study carried out has the limitation of showing only the results in one activity and in one place. It would be convenient to extend this type of study to organizations of the same sector as well as to organizations of another sector so that the fulfillment of the hypotheses that are defended can be corroborated, although it is to be expected that the same values do not always have to be manifested. Similarly, the existence of possible variations of the regulatory nature of the values or of the values defined in themselves with respect to other variables in the category of diversity such as gender, age, or others should be deepened. Finally, it is possible to point out that, despite its advantages, convenience sampling prevents inferences about the population studied and generalized for any other population.
The developed research offers a tool for the analysis of the shared values in an organization, as well as the regulatory nature of the behavior that they can present and their impact on performance indicators. Allowing to corroborate the existence of a relationship between both categories. Likewise, it indicates a set of particularities that allow us to distinguish its limitations and on this basis propose new lines of research. As was observed in the Results session, the investigation showed its relevance in reinforcing and coinciding with hypotheses developed in previous research. Despite the foregoing, due to the limitations indicated above, it can be affirmed that there are multiple edges on which research should continue on the subject addressed.