An OD Process Toolkit

Crispin Garden-Webster, FHRINZ, MNZPsSAssessment ManagerTakatuf Oman LLC.

Contents

What is Organisational Development?...........................................................................................3

Appreciative Inquiry........................................................................................................................4

Accountability Framework..............................................................................................................7

Force Field Analysis.........................................................................................................................8

The Elephant in the Room..............................................................................................................9

Competitive Mental Angle............................................................................................................11

Repertory Grid Technique.............................................................................................................12

Autonomy Audit...........................................................................................................................15

Systems Thinking Model...............................................................................................................16

Some thinking about enabling Change.........................................................................................17

Change Readiness.........................................................................................................................20

Straight talk...................................................................................................................................23

Delegation Actions........................................................................................................................24

Feed it Forward.............................................................................................................................27

Values and Beliefs.........................................................................................................................28

A Cage of Monkey’s......................................................................................................................29

2

What is Organisational Development?The following definition appears in the Statement of the Board of Editors of the widely-accepted Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer series of books on Organization Development.

Organization Development is a system-wide and values-based collaborative process of applying behavioural science knowledge to the adaptive development, improvement and reinforcement of such organizational features as the strategies, structures, processes, people and cultures that lead to organization effectiveness. ”

Put simply…

“Organization Development is a system-wide and values-based collaborative process . . .of applying behavioural science knowledge to actions

the adaptive development, (to develop] improvement, (to improve] and reinforcement (to reinforce] of . . . such organizational features (components) as the

o strategies,o structures,o processes,o people, and o cultures . . .

…With the intended outcome of organization effectiveness

3

Appreciative InquiryThinking Choices. There are two ways of thinking about developing group dynamics and teams and the choice determines the development focus:

1. Deficit thinking. Deficit thinking positions development as a cost and a solution to a problem… it attempts to ‘fix’ weaknesses through developing competencies. These competencies are often generic in nature and the result can be unfulfilling. At best it may move people out of a zone of weakness and have them disappear into the middle range.

2. Strengths thinking. A focus on strengths aligns learning to results, takes stock of team member’s strengths; identifies what has and is working well and the peak experiences and behaviours that have been critical to the work of the team. The development protocol is about replicating these peak experiences and exposing people to learning through real work challenges and stretch experiences combined with feedback and coaching. Focusing on strengths develops behaviour that comes more naturally and this increases the probability of sustainable learning. Focusing on strengths leads to an appreciative inquiry that links learning to the root causes of success; it defines what we want to see more of and asks people to be more of who they already are.

The practical action that enables this approach is to ask leaders to identify the peak experiences that have shaped their development and replicate these experiences for the teams and individuals. Figure 1 illustrates the shift from ‘training to fix problems’ to ‘learning to develop strengths’.

Shifting the ConversationConversation 1:Problem Focus

Conversation 2:Possibility Focus

Asks people to look at the current state and recent history to identify yesterday’s causes and current problems

It rarely results in new vision and can generate defensiveness, e.g. survive and look good

Often begins with an assumption that the sector has problems to be solved

The more problems you see the more problems will dominate the discussion and the less energy there will be

Looks for the root cause of success – what’s working here

Appreciates and values the best of what we have and looks for how we can get more

Enables a vision of the future Assumes the team has opportunities to

develop The more possibilities generated, the

more possibilities and energy there will be

Figure 1. The Choice

4

Sustainable development requires a change in the conversation. This is about suspending judgment and placing the status quo in a place where it doesn’t block our view. It is hard to create a compelling future by extrapolating it out of the current state. Plans are best developed with the future seen as close up and the current state seen at a distance.

The Appreciative Inquiry approach seeks to elicit from participants a vision and design for the future that builds on the positive core of the teams role and the best possible opportunities that the future may provide.

Figure 2. Appreciative Inquiry

Phase 1: Discovery: The best of what has been and what is… Groups identify the positive core of the teams role, i.e. what has always been at the centre

of the capability over time Good practices and the foundation of success What’s important:

o What do we really want the team to be?o What do we value about ourselves; the people we work with; our organisation and our

stakeholders

Phase 2: Dreams and Vision: What does the organisation want us to be? Individual interviews draft descriptions of a desired state in relation to the strengths

identified in the Discovery exercise What will be irreducibly unique about the role of the team What does the team’s role look like at its best? What do you want to see more of? What’s the best thing that could happen?

Phase 3: Design: Creating possibility propositions. Crafting a description of the team’s role in which the positive change core is boldly alive within the processes, systems and collaborations of the organisation. Challenging capability statements are crafted that are affirmative statements of the future state, described in the present tense, that stretch the team toward its

5

vision. What are we already good at and how can we build on this success? Why do some of the things we do work well, and what can we learn from who does what? What legacy do we want to create? What resources are required in order to achieve our vision? What new ways of working will strengthen our core and distinctive competencies? How might our culture need to evolve to support the work of our vision?

Phase 4: Delivery: Becoming what we need to be - what does this desired state look like and what needs to be done Group drafts bold propositions to achieve the vision based on the positive core Articulate the broad values and principles Articulate structural relationships and accountabilities What does the team need to keep, stop and start doing in order to move forward? What are the immediate actions? what are the delivery mechanisms, support needs and

information requirements to deliver on these actions What is our emerging narrative story and how can we communicate this to other parts of

the organisation? Where could we form powerful connections with partners whose interests are aligned with

ours?

6

Design Primer

1. Effective Design. Design is about accountability and collaboration:

a. Structure follows strategy. Design enables delegated management hierarchies to interact with each other to deliver on strategies and plans; A plan and a set of qualified priorities and desired outcomes is a fundamental prerequisite – “No wind is the right wind unless you know what harbour you are sailing to”

b. ‘The map is not the ground’. Structure describes the way work is organised but it does not tell the story of how results are delivered. Relationships between functions are an unstable mix of mutual accountability and authority, combined with the relative persuasive powers, personal styles and values of the people involved.

c. Clarity of Accountability. The basis of organisation is clarity of accountability for results and the allocation of authority for the resources needed to achieve these results. An accountability is an agreement that certain events will or will not occur. This clarity includes:

i. clear accountabilities and strong disciplines are established to ensure that accountabilities and commitments are met; and

ii. relationships between individual teams are well defined; i.e. who leads in what situations and who follows.

2. Leadership enables the design. A manager is accountable for leading the team, the outputs of individuals and for sustaining a team capable of producing these outputs. The leader’s role is key to supporting the relationships between and across structural functions. This includes:

a. clearly defining rules for distribution of resources and budget

b. coordinating reporting relationships for staff to ensure that staff have only one manager responsible for their command or employment relationship, but acknowledging and expecting that day to day project tasking may in some cases come from more than one manager;

c. the real world of conflicting priorities and resource calls are being acknowledged, are on the table and managed based on agreed priorities;

d. maintaining a focus on results and attention being paid to the end game of productivity;

e. ensuring that there are development opportunities for staff independent of promotion, utilising ‘first-amongst-equals’ team leader and project leader roles;

f. horizontal and vertical co-ordination enabling specialised skills to be deployed where they are required;

g. flexible teams that are created and deployed for specific tasks and then redeployed as project cycles are completed;

h. frameworks and standards are in place and understood to reduce the need for close supervision; and

7

i. information systems and/or processes are in place to support adequate reporting and transparency of the priority calls which need to be made.

3. Span of control. Span of control ratios typically range between 1:7 and 1:10, however the only real limitation on span of control is that a manager may have as many direct reports as the operation will allow him or her to have meaningful face to face conversations about performance and development.

4. Role relationships. Clarity and agreement on accountability and authority in work relationships significantly reduces the confusion and mistrust that generates conflict. By being specific about role relationships, the process flows across vertically specialised functions are assisted and we reduce the conflict created by individuals making up their own rules about how to make things work.

a. Dotted lines are typically a signature of confused or shared accountability. This is to be avoided wherever possible as it leads to confusion, conflict and potentially sub optimal delivery. Cross-functional role relationships have often been less well defined and sometimes referred to as dotted line, or lateral relationships. In a Matrix design, these relationships must be well defined to enable integration of the functionally organised capability so that the work can get done. The crucial feature these relationships have in common is how tasks are initiated.

b. There are three sets of relationships that provide the minimum necessary conditions for handling everyday working arrangements:

i. Functional - with accountability for the outputs of others’; ii. Cross-functional - task initiating relationships without accountability for

others’ outputs; and iii. Team working relationships - Functional specialisation organises the various

capabilities and teams under functional managerial accountability and authority. Cross-functional relationships then need to be specified between colleague direct reports of the same manager, or between other functions to enable delivery.

c. Clarifying and specifying the nature of the required role relationships allows us to communicate to everyone the accountability and authority they carry in their working relationships with one another. People are then free to exercise their own personal style and influence in the way they deliver the agreed results. How do these work?

5. Functional task assignment relationships: In which a functional manager (A) is authorised to task an employee (B) with whom they have an employment contract to do something, and is held accountable by his/her own manager for the quantity, quality, and delivery of the employee’s output.

6. Cross-functional task initiating relationships: In which a manager or specialist (C), to whom the employee (B) does not report, is authorised to initiate the employee doing something, but where it is the employee’s manager (A) and not (C) who is remains accountable for ensuring (B) performs the duty and for the quality of (B’s) output, e.g. a senior data analyst requests a data analyst in another team to complete a task via the data analysts manager.

8

7. Organisations’ are generally designed to operate somewhere along a continuum between fully functional and fully project structured as illustrated in Figure 1.

Functional Dual Authority Service Authority Authority Structure Structure Structure

Figure 1. Authority-Structure Continuum

8. Function vs. Project. A common design choice centres on the choice between project and functional forms and the search for a solution that recognises the equal importance of technical performance and coordination while balancing as best as possible the advantages and disadvantages of functional or skill based vs. project orientation.

a. The challenge is that when one basis of organisation is chosen, the benefits of the others can be surrendered. In a functional structure, the solutions are developed but the projects can fall behind schedule. In a fully project oriented structure, there may be better cost and schedule performance but the solutions may not be as well developed. Managers are required to make a judgment as to whether solutions development or schedule completion is most important and chose the appropriate form.

b. There are a range of design options. Each has their own characteristics, strengths and challenges. The common options are:

i. Functionalii. Product/Technology

iii. User / Sectoriv. Geographyv. Process

9. Structural Forms. Each structural form has its own advantages, disadvantages and therefore management requirements. A summary of the choices is provided in Part 3: Tools. Some general factors that may be considered are:

a. Specifying job outcomes in quantitative terms. For jobs where the outcome is predominantly functional (‘support’, ‘policy’, ‘technical’ or ‘specialist’) specify the key outcomes required in quantitative terms and if possible with financial indicators of the functional success wherever possible, e.g. revenue, cost avoidance, volume, frequency, quality standards etc.

9

Project/Environmental influence in Decisions

Functional/Strategic influence in decisions ?

?

b. Designing a job to suit a particular individual’s strengths. This can be useful as a minor supplement to a structure, enabling a good return for employer and an employee. However, it should not become the primary driver in arranging accountabilities as it usually requires cover and concession elsewhere and because individuals do move on. As a primary driver it inevitably results in on-going and unnecessary restructuring.

c. Taking account of what the labour market can supply. There may be instances where it is difficult to source the desired match of employee-to-job from the internal or external labour market. This should be managed primarily by way of employee development, contractual and remuneration management. However, there are structural mechanisms that can be used to assist, such as exposure and experience gained from teams and project leadership, using ‘first-amongst-equals’ roles to support development and determining the balance of multi-skilled versus specialist-skilled roles

d. Using team structures. Teams can be formed on a permanent or project basis as a minor part of individual’s jobs, to explicitly monitor or advise on business issues where your structure naturally inhibits such input. For example, setting and delivering upon consistent standards in a non-functional structure; financial measurement of outcomes in support areas; matching financial inputs with outputs in customer/market business areas; integrating, reporting or advising on processes in some product/technology and functional areas.

e. Using external experts. This can be useful on an ‘as needed’ basis where the emphasis in a business area is strongly weighted to ‘generalist’ jobs at one extreme or to ‘specialists’ at the other. The ‘external expert’ can be used to complement the primary focus of the structure, bringing skills to particular projects that are not resident internally and/or may only be required periodically.

f. Managing information and reporting. The more diversity there is in job designs, the greater the effort needed to make reporting efficient and the information explicit and meaningful.

g. Control and delegating authority. The more competitive and fast-moving the external environment, the greater the need to delegate decision-making authority (authority relating to risk, cost/benefit, customers, finance, pricing) to the ‘coal-face’ jobs where customer and supplier contact is managed. This is the case with both internal and external customers. Hand-in-hand with delegating authority goes the need for parameters on the decision-making, which can be measured, monitored and managed. Generally, functional and process structures will be more controlling, so focus is needed on delegation. On the contrary, product/technology, customer/market and geographic structures provide higher potential to delegate authority but the parameters and decision making authorities need more effort.

10

Accountability Framework

Accountability and responsibility are often used interchangeably but there is an important distinction which has implications for organisational performance.

Accountable: who owns the outcome;

Responsible: who is responsible for doing and delivering the work – the output;

Support: who supports this delivery,

Consult: who needs to be consulted, and

Inform: who needs to be informed

This is the RASCI analysis. It is core to organisational design as it describes who does what and it also helps mark out the scope of what may be outsourced and what should remain core to the operation.

The levels and circumstances for each RASCI component needs to be negotiated defined and agreed. This is best done by working through a range of service delivery scenarios. Clarity and agreement on these matters is fundamental to enabling teams to operate effectively.

One caveat is that attempts to eliminate hierarchy and put in place teams, task forces, functionally autonomous work groups and so on can have the weakening effect of substituting a hierarchy of accountable individuals with a cluster of non-accountable groups. The correct approach is to cut across the managerial hierarchy to establish special purpose project teams or task forces for discrete projects where this is needed.

A template RASCI is below:

RASCI AnalysisAccountable Ownership of agreed organisational requirements and outcomesResponsible Ownership of deliverySupport Provides Input /resourcesConsult Is consulted as part of the action (also provide feedback) Inform Provides Information

Role Accountability and Authority Accountable Responsible Support Consult Inform

RASCI analysis enables the organisation to define accountability and the analysis informs the development of organisational performance and collaboration by making explicit the responsibilities and key relationships that are important for service delivery.

11

Force Field Analysis

Force Field Analysis is a useful technique for looking at all the forces for and against a decision. In effect, it is a specialised method of weighing pros and cons.

By carrying out the analysis you can plan to strengthen the forces supporting a decision, and reduce the impact of opposition to it.

Describe your plan or proposal for change in the coloured panel

List all forces for change in the Driving column, and all forces against change in the Restraining column.

Assign a score to each force, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong).

Where you have already decided to carry out a project, Force Field Analysis can help you to work out how to improve its probability of success. Here you have two choices:

To reduce the strength of the forces opposing a project.

To increase the forces pushing a project.

Often the most elegant solution is the first: just trying to force change through may cause its own problems. People can be uncooperative if change is forced on them.

Key Points:

Force Field Analysis is a useful technique for looking at all the forces for and against a plan. It helps you to weigh the importance of these factors and decide whether a plan is worth implementing.

Where you have decided to carry out a plan, Force Field Analysis helps you identify changes that you could make to improve it.

12

The Elephant in the Room

1. Pass out 3 index cards/stickies to each participant

2. Have them write down the top three things the group needs to talk about and isn't (undiscussables). This can be done before the session or during.

3. Collect the cards and shuffle to provide some anonymity.

4. Have the group work together to put the cards on a continuum from the most discussable to the least discussable. (You just need a wall and some masking tape)

5. Pick the three "most undiscussable" cards and have the team discuss them one at a time. Let the group pick which they will tackle first.

Variation 1

Everybody writes their issue on a card and after a shuffle and redistribution reads the one in their hand as if it were theirs. Even if it is, the discussion is directed at the secret...not the person.

Variation 2

Before prioritizing and tackling the index cards, ask the participants to list gains and losses for themselves personally and for their work group (or the whole organisation) of not addressing the issues.

So for each issue you've got a grid with personal and team gains and losses. This gives a strong visual about how the undiscussable is weighing the organisation down.

Variation 3

Post the cards during a break and have everyone come in and read all of the posted undiscussables. After a few minutes for participants to absorb the content, the process questions include:

"what have you learned about our organisation?" " What price do we pay for having these undiscussables?" and "Are there any of these that should stay undiscussable and why?" Then go into the

prioritisation and discussion.

Variation 4

Two flip charts are positioned 10-15m apart. Then the number one and the words "Almost Never" are written on one flip-chart. On the other the number seven is written and the words "Almost Always".

13

Participants are asked to imagine a scale between one and seven, think about the statement: "We tell each other the truth", and to vote with their feet... That is to get up and physically position themselves on the scale.

The facilitator asks each person to declare where they are standing on the scale, ones, twos, etc. Then the facilitator chooses someone, looks them in the eye and asks "Why are you standing there? After hearing the answer, the facilitator moves on to the next person and asks the same question. All participants should be given the opportunity to answer the question on telling each other the truth.

Then the facilitator, makes the statement: "We respect one another", and instructs the team to vote with their feet. Again depending on time constraints and the size of the team, everyone might be given the opportunity to answer the question: "Why are you standing there?"

The statements and voting continue with "We seek to understand one another." "We support one another." And "We are trustworthy". Trustworthy means that we do what we say we are going to do and keep our commitments to one another. As the facilitator gets to the last two or three questions, it might be good idea to call on people randomly, planning to hear from only a portion of the team members.

At this point give the team a short break and do not attempt to process the exercise for take aways or learnings. The value of this exercise is that team members can calibrate each other team member's attitudes, beliefs and convictions on these very important team relationship dimensions. This will guide individual team members in determining the best way to deal with one another when these dimensions come into play later as the team continues to form.

14

Competitive Mental Angle

For organisations that are looking at their marketing strategies

Divide the managers into two groups and send them into separate rooms.

Ask one group to write a list of all the things that they believe differentiate them from their main competitor in their eyes of their customers.

Ask the other group to pretend they are the managers of their main competitor and ask them to write a list of all the things that separate them from their own company in the eyes of their customers.

Bring them together and ask them to cross off everything on both lists.

Usually the whole lot disappears and the team have to do some really hard thinking as to how they differentiate themselves.

15

Repertory Grid Technique

Repertory Grid or Rep Grid is a method of eliciting or tapping into an individual's ‘mental map’ or the set of ideas they use to classify, frame or describe their judgements. When applied to the work situation it provides a powerful tool for making explicit the discrete perceptions people use when distinguishing good from poor performance in a role or job.

In the Rep Grid process, an individual is asked to think of three good performers and three poor performers in the subject role or position. They place some identifier for each of these people on six small cards labelled A to F, e.g. a nickname, initials, etc.

Note: This can naturally be a sensitive distinction and the interviewer does not need to know who these people are, the cards simply serve as reference points for comparison.

Combinations of three cards or a triad are presented back to the person and they are asked:

“In what way are two of these people similar in a way that makes them different from the third person”?

The person is free to move the cards around in any way they see fit, to assist them find a 'construct' or theme that distinguishes two individuals from the third.

The distinguishing construct is noted. If the person makes a distinction on the basis of a personality trait such as sense of humour or a biodata factor like gender or age, they are asked to think again in regard to a hard skill or observable behaviour.

Most people have few problems producing a word picture or example of a similarity or difference and other prompts that are useful for enriching the response are:

a. “Okay, that's good, so how is this third person different from these two?”

b. “You have said that these two are like that... or this one is like that ... How would I know they were like that (or did that). If I observed them for a few days, what would I see them doing?”

c. “Can you give me an example of this?”

After each triad has been worked through, it is useful to get the individual to provide a summary construct or label for what they have described in their comparisons. The table illustrates an example of the kind of information gathered in this process.

16

Triad How two are similar How third is different Activity/skill

BCD

B & D both demonstrate poor meeting management skills

C has highly developed personal organisation skills and manages own time efficiently

Personal Organisation

1 2a 2b 3

Example Rep Grid Information

1. Triad grouping of elements being compared e.g. managers' B, C & D

2 a & b Descriptions of distinguishing behaviours, skills and attributes

3. Summary statement of activity or area being described, e.g. Planning, Business Acumen, Communication skills,etc.

Respondents provide all the information in cells 2 a & b and 3.

In a typical competency modelling exercise, a valid sample includes approximately 20 - 30 percent of job incumbents. This figure may not always be practical but serves as an ideal to aim for. It can also be valuable to include some managers and possibly some subordinate reports to the subject position.

Analysis

Rep Grid delivers a wealth of data that needs to be carefully content analysed to achieve reduction of redundant data caused by overlap or double up i.e., typically over a number of people, the same or similar information can be elicited. This is summarised as first order material that was commonly elicited across the group and therefore has been seen as important or significant.

The content analysis process of identifying first order, second order and third order material continues until obscure and unrelated information is discarded or included in terms of the fit to the pattern that is being established. This analytical process discussed below, identifies the sources of raw competency data.

17

Rep Grid Record Template

BehavioursTriad How two people are similar How third is different Activity/Skill

Autonomy Audit

© 2012 Daniel H. Pink

How much autonomy do you and/or your people have at work?

Answer each question with a numerical ranking (using a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 meaning “almost none” and 10 meaning “a huge amount”):

1. How much autonomy do you have over your tasks at work—-your main responsibilities and what you do in a given day?

2. How much autonomy do you have over your time at work—-for instance, when you arrive, when you leave, and how you allocate your hours each day?

3. How much autonomy do you have over your team at work—-that is, to what extent are you able to choose the people with whom you typically collaborate?

4. How much autonomy do you have over your technique at work—-how you actually perform the main responsibilities of your job?

Scoring

What’s the employee average? The figure will fall somewhere on a 40–point autonomy scale (with 0 being a North Korean prison and 40 being a raucous bash at Mt Maunganui). Compare that number to people’s perceptions. Perhaps the boss thought everyone had plenty of freedom—-but the audit showed an average autonomy rating of only 15.

Equally important, calculate separate results for task, time, team, and technique. A healthy overall average can sometimes mask a problem in a particular area. An overall autonomy rating of, say, 27 isn’t bad. However, if that average consists of 8 each for task, technique, and team, but only 3 for time, you’ve identified an autonomy weak spot in the organisation.

It’s remarkable sometimes how little the people running organizations know about the experiences of the people working around them. But it’s equally remarkable how often leaders are willing to do things differently if they see a little data. That’s what an autonomy audit can do. And if you include a section in your audit for employees to jot down their own ideas about increasing autonomy, you might even find some great solutions.

Systems Thinking Model

© John Seddon www.systemsthinking.co.nz

A systems view consolidates the purpose, demand, capability, workflow and system conditions of an operation or function

Purpose: What is the purpose of this system?

Demand: What is the nature of demand?

Capability: What is the team predictably achieving?

Flow: How does the work flow?

System Conditions: Why does the system need to perform this way?

Command and control Thinking

Systems Thinking

Top-down hierarchy Perspective Outside-in system

Functional specialisation and procedures

Design of work Demand, valueand flow

Contractual Attitude to customers What matters?

Separated from work Decision-making Integrated with work

Output, targets, activity, standards:

Related to budget

Measurement Capability, variation:Related to purpose

Contractual Attitude to suppliers Co-operative

Control budgets, manage people

Management ethos Learn through action on the system

Extrinsic Assumptions about motivation

Intrinsic

20

Some thinking about enabling Change

Managers are encountering new technology opportunities, new supply choices and the need to think creatively and collaboratively about resources in a continuously tight fiscal environment. This environment is demanding an ability to adapt. Enabling change is about dealing with the impact these adaptations have on affected people and key stakeholders.

People don’t resist change; what they resist is ‘being changed’. We make choices and embrace change when it serves our needs. When change is imposed or when change which might serve a better future is not explained effectively this creates resistance. We need to give people compelling and qualified reasons for the change and be explicit about the impact of not changing. Project management applications are useful for some kinds of system change and are typically rigourous on programmatics and the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of change but they are often light on the key change factor of ‘why’ and typically, they do not encompass the input and effect of tacit and cultural knowledge of how the organisation works.

Change creates uncertainty. People need to understand why the change is occurring; and we need to make it safe to move away from their comfort zone and their investment in the status quo. Responses cover the spectrum of:

critics who oppose the change, victims who become defensive, bystanders who try to ignore the change, and what we might call ‘navigators’ who engage proactively and respond to

empowerment and the opportunity to chart the future.

Enabling change is about supporting people to become navigators and get some skin in the game for moving forward to a new status quo. It’s about talking to and engaging the impacted people so that they are part of the solution.

So we think that to enable change effectively, leaders need to:

1. Explain the context behind the change and establish clarity and transparency on ‘why’ the changes are being made;

2. Describe a compelling and credible future state3. Communicate the threat of not changing and be capable and ready to regularly explain why we

are changing – never underestimate the value of repetition 4. Define what has to be accomplished within the immediate period5. Engage people in crafting solutions to the demands of the future state - it is critical to involve

people where we can in the decision making and discretionary space around details – autonomy within clear parameters is a key engagement platform and mitigation to resistance.

6. Engage people in testing solutions in practice, and support their daily progress7. Explain the criteria and rationale for accepting, revising, and rejecting people’s inputs.

21

An outline approach

An approach to initiating a change plan and defining the actions required to deliver business benefits is to first concentrate a systems view to identify the key environmental conditions and current state:

Purpose: What is the purpose of the system? Demand: What are the demand (and supply) characteristics? Capability: What is the system predictably achieving? Flow: How does the work flow? System Conditions: Why does the system need to perform this way?

From this initial assessment we can develop the change plan to engage people proactively as part of the solution. Ten practical actions that would be progressed are:

1. Future State. Articulating the future state as a narrative… what does ‘good’ look like 2. Clarity of design. Confirm assumptions and dependencies including clarity on the

mandated space relative to what discretion and autonomy managers have in designing the future environment

3. Stakeholders. Identify and confirm stakeholders4. Impact Assessment. Conduct an impact analysis for each Stakeholder or stakeholder

group focusing on the impact of the change on them 5. Segmentation. Segments stakeholders based on impact analysis and their engagement

requirements6. Communications Plan. Develop a scheduled communication plan with key messages and

tailored content based on impact analysis/stakeholder needs7. Timeline. Develop the timeline and calendar of proposed changes, the likely impact,

what needs to occur by when, and what the benefits will be once change has been implemented

8. Engagement. Facilitate support for managers with design facilitation within the autonomous and discretionary space. People deal with change in the first instance on a personal basis - “what’s in it for me” (WIIFM). These issues have to be the first point of interaction as no amount of vision or process elegance has any traction until we have addressed these needs. To this end communications and engagement actions must typically work through and answer seven (7) questions:

a. WIIFM? b. Why are we doing this? c. What is going to change? d. What is not going to change? e. What might go wrong? f. What will be difficult and what will hurt? g. What signposts will we be looking for to tell us we are making progress?

9. Messaging. Providing managers and key influencers with information packs and presentations to help them engage their people’

10. Recognition. Continue support and regularly monitor progress, recognising and celebrating success as it occurs.

22

Some other considerations are:

1. No criticising a new idea unless you have a better one.2. No looking for failures from new stuff while ignoring failures from the old stuff.3. No whiners or bullies.4. Cut some slack for the change agents.5. Forget about getting it right first time and focus on what we can learn6. Love experiments as you would an ugly child.7. Capture accidents - collect wrong answers and ask different questions.8. Suspend judgment - postpone criticism.9. Ask questions and try new things - imagine if we could learn throughout life at the same rate

as an infant.10. Meet and talk regularly even if there is no new stuff

Blocking Change

For those who want to resist, block and diffuse change, you need to make sure you encourage and demonstrate the following behaviours:

1. Regard any new idea from below with suspicion - because it's new and because it's from below.

2. Insist that people who need your approval to act, first go through several other levels of management to get their signatures.

3. Ask sections or individuals to challenge and criticise each other's proposals. That saves you the job of deciding; you just pick the survivor.

4. Express your criticisms freely, and withhold your praise. That keeps people on their toes.

5. Treat identification of problems as signs of failure. This discourages people from letting you know when something in their area isn't working.

6. Control everything very carefully. Make sure people count anything and everything that can be counted and get them to do it frequently.

7. Make decisions to reorganise or change policies in secret, then spring them on people unexpectedly. That also keeps them on their toes.

8. Make sure that requests for information are fully justified, and make sure that information is not given out to subordinates freely. You don't want information to fall into the wrong hands.

9. In the name of delegation and participation, assign to subordinate staff responsibility for figuring out how to cut back, reorganise, move people around, or otherwise implement threatening decisions you have made. Get them to do it quickly.

10. And, above all, never forget that you the higher ups, already know everything important there is to know about this organisation.

Rosabeth Moss-Kanter,

The Change Masters, 1986

23

Change Readiness

Leaders are:Satisfied with the way things are now.Concerned about the present state. Dissatisfied with the present state of the organisation.

The sponsor of the change: Has not been identified or is distrusted by the organisation. Is accepted and trusted by the organisation. Is highly respected and trusted by the organisation.

Teamwork: Is rarely demonstrated because people work independently.Is demonstrated during special projects and in areas that are highly interdependent.Is highly valued and demonstrated at all levels.

Leaders in this organisation: Are opposed to providing the people and resources necessary to successfully implement changes.Are reluctant to provide the people and resources that are necessary to successfully implement changes.Are willing to provide the people and resources that are necessary to successfully implement changes.

If we do not change, we are likely to: Maintain fiscal and resource position.Experience some financial difficulties or loss of resource.Experience severe financial difficulties or loss resources.

Key people in the organisation are seen as: Weak advocates or resistors of the change.Mild advocates of the change.Strong advocates of the change.

Front-line people: Are given little or no input into the decisions that they must implement.Have input into decisions but must get approval before making decisions or changes.Are given the authority to make and implement decisions to do their work effectively.

Leaders are: Unaware of the amount of their time that is involved and may be unwilling to support the investment of time needed.Only somewhat aware that successful change requires a major investment of their time and are tentative to support investing the time needed.Fully aware that successful change requires a major investment of their time and are willing to provide the time needed.

24

Executives: Are unwilling to sustain strong support for change with long-term benefits and frequently support fire-fighting or quick-fix solutions.Are inconsistent in supporting change with long-term benefits and periodically support fire-fighting or quick-fix solutions.Demonstrate consistent support for change with long-term benefits and limit fire-fighting or quick-fix solutions.

Our project team: Has no project management training or experience.Has limited project management training and/or experience.Has been trained in project management and has proven experience.

People believe that: There will not be consistent long-term support for the changes.There is some concern that support for the changes may be short-term.Consistent long-term support for the changes will be provided.

Over the last year, we have experienced: Minimal to no quality or delivery problems with stakeholders.Moderate, routine quality or delivery problems with stakeholders.Severe quality or delivery problems with stakeholders.

In general, people view change as: A painful process with no positive results for them and are very resistant.Painful but necessary if they can see the benefits of change.An important strategy for maintaining our capability.

Meetings: Tend to start late, stray off the topic and frequently seem like a waste of time.Stay mostly on the topic but tend to be dominated by a few people.Are efficient and orderly with opportunities for everyone to have input.

The implementation of rapid change is: In direct conflict with current values in the organisation.Compatible with explicit values but may conflict with the way things are really done in the organisation.Compatible with existing organisation values.

In general, we have: Extremely low levels of turnover and/or absenteeism.Average levels of turnover and/or absenteeism.Excessive turnover and/or absenteeism.

In the past, change has: Been seen as a passing fad or a way to reduce headcount.Produced mixed results for either the organisation or employees.Been positive for both the organisation and employees.

25

Project Team Members and the Executive Leadership: Have received no training and have little knowledge of the change process.Have obtained knowledge through reading and other informal means of how to guide the change process.Have received training and have the knowledge needed to guide the change process successfully.

Currently, we have: Almost no training provided to people throughout the organisation.Sporadic training.A system for training people that encourages the enhancement of skills on an on-going basis.

Waste (time, rework, materials) is: Lower than industry averages in our organisation.Moderate within our organisation.Excessively high within our organisation.

Changing involves learning and learning usually involves mistakes. In general, people: Feel threatened or fearful when mistakes are made, hiding them when they occur.Worry that mistakes will have negative repercussions.Feel safe and are encouraged to learn from their mistakes.

Our change leadership: Communicates poorly or not at all, the reasons for and status of organisation changes.Communicates with moderate effectiveness the reasons for and status of organisational changes.Communicates frequently in two-way dialogue and in multiple formats.

Our organisation’s information technology providers: Do not have the skills needed to implement the prospective technology solution.Have some of the skills needed to implement new technologies.Have demonstrated skills in the new technologies.

Our organisation’s economic performance: Is poor with low profit or losses and/or little or no growth.Is moderate with adequate profit, and growth around the industry standard.Is great with profit and growth at the top of our industry.

Sponsors of the change: Will avoid confrontation and are likely to back down to resistance.May lose commitment if opposition is encountered during implementation.Have a commitment that is strong enough to sustain the change through implementation.

Individuals involved in the change project: Reject new ideas with concerns such as “it’s been tried before” or “we don’t do it that way here.”Will reluctantly accept new ideas but only after prolonged resistance to them.Are open to new ideas and encourage creative thinking.

The capital dollar investment for the prospective changes: Is not available for this project.Must be competed for with other projects due to limited capital.Is available and has been allocated to the project.

26

Straight talk

Get Clarity. In the normal course of meetings get clarity and get others to confirm their intent, e.g. Talking to your manager:

• “When you say... it sounds like you mean….. is that right?” • “I think the expected output is …. Is that right?” • “Our priorities are… Is that correct?”

Talking to your team • “When you say we need to …., that sounds like you think that …… is that right? • “In order to make this work I need you to … are you able to do this?” • “ I can’t do …. But I can do …. Will that help?”• “If you can’t do….; are you able to do… ?” • “If I do… for you, then I need you to do… for me. Can you work with that?”

Test assumptions. Separate fact from assumption. Know the facts relating to the situation and have the details to hand. Ask “Is that an assumption?” and “How can we test that assumption?” Anticipate. Know your people and be ready for their responses - prepare your responses.

• During change questions are as important as answers. • Questions tell you what is important and are a way to discover what is on peoples’ minds. • Straight talk

Use Questions. Your own questions are a way to discover information that will help you understand accurately what the person means, believes or feels. Prepare and use open questions that begin with why, what, tell me about, how will you…etc. Examples are:

• “What is your evidence (for what you have said or claimed)?” • “Who have you talked to about this?” • “How did you go about looking for alternative solutions?'’ • “How have you measured (whatever you say is a problem)?” • “How will you measure the effectiveness of that idea?” • “So when you say that, it sounds like you think xyz. Is that right?”

Using “I” Statements • When we state something about a situation as a fact rather than acknowledge it as our own

experience, it implies we are powerless to have any influence over our responses to the situation.

• This is a common way in which conflicts become entrenched and, seemingly, irresolvable. Again, the situation reduces to a win/lose dynamic where if one person's fact is right then the other's must be wrong.

• The point is that using 'I' statements allows for the possibility of exploration, creativity and change in response to the situation.

First steps coaching questions

1. What would ‘good’ look like?2. What actions do you need to take to get there?3. What resources do you have?4. What resources do you need?

27

Delegation Actions

Define the task. Confirm in your own mind that the task is suitable to be delegated. Does it meet the criteria for delegating?

Select the individual or team. What are your reasons for delegating to this person or team? What are they going to get out of it? What are you going to get out of it?

Assess ability and training needs. Is the other person or team of people capable of doing the task? Do they understand what needs to be done. If not, you can't delegate.

Explain the reasons. You must explain why the job or responsibility is being delegated. And why to that person or people? What is its importance and relevance? Where does it fit in the overall scheme of things?

State required results. What must be achieved? Clarify understanding by getting feedback from the other person. How will the task be measured? Make sure they know how you intend to decide that the job is being successfully done.

Consider resources required. Discuss and agree what is required to get the job done. Consider people, location, premises, equipment, money, materials, other related activities and services.

Agree deadlines. When must the job be finished? Or if an ongoing duty, when are the review dates? When are the reports due? And if the task is complex and has parts or stages, what are the priorities? At this point you may need to confirm understanding with the other person of the previous points, getting ideas and interpretation. As well as showing you that the job can be done, this helps to reinforce commitment. Methods of checking and controlling must be agreed with the other person. Failing to agree this in advance will cause this monitoring to seem like interference or lack of trust.

Support and communicate. Think about who else needs to know what's going on, and inform them. Involve the other person in considering this so they can see beyond the issue at hand. Do not leave the person to inform your own peers of their new responsibility. Warn the person about any awkward matters of politics or protocol. Inform your own boss if the task is important, and of sufficient profile.

Feedback on results. It is essential to let the person know how they are doing, and whether they have achieved their aims. If not, you must review with them why things did not go to plan, and deal with the problems. You must absorb the consequences of failure, and pass on the credit for success. Levels of Delegation Delegation isn't just a matter of telling someone else what to do. There is a wide range of varying freedom that you can confer on the other person. The more experienced and reliable the other person is, then the more freedom you can give. The more critical the task then the more cautious you need to be about extending a lot of freedom, especially if your job or reputation depends on getting a good result. Take care to choose the most appropriate style for each situation. For each example the statements are simplified for clarity; in reality you would choose a less abrupt style of language, depending on the person and the relationship. At the very least, a "Please" and "Thank-you" would be included in the requests.

28

It's important also to ask the other person what level of authority they feel comfortable being given. Why guess? When you ask, you can find out for sure and agree this with the other person. Some people are confident; others less so. It's your responsibility to agree with them what level is most appropriate, so that the job is done effectively and with minimal unnecessary involvement from you. Involving the other person in agreeing the level of delegated freedom for any particular responsibility is an essential part of the 'contract' that you make with them.

These levels of delegation are not an exhaustive list. There are many more shades of grey between these black-and-white examples. Take time to discuss and adapt the agreements and 'contracts' that you make with people regarding delegated tasks, responsibility and freedom according to the situation.

Be creative in choosing levels of delegated responsibility, and always check with the other person that they are comfortable with your chosen level. People are generally capable of doing far more than you imagine.

The rate and extent of responsibility and freedom delegated to people is a fundamental driver of organisational growth and effectiveness, the growth and well-being of your people, and of your own development and advancement. ExamplesThese examples of different delegation levels progressively offer, encourage and enable more delegated freedom. Level 1 is the lowest level of delegated freedom (basically none). Level 10 is the highest level typically (and rarely) found in organisations. 1 "Wait to be told." or "Do exactly what I say." or "Follow these instructions precisely."This is instruction. There is no delegated freedom at all. 2 "Look into this and tell me the situation. I'll decide." This is asking for investigation and analysis but no recommendation. The person delegating retains responsibility for assessing options prior to making the decision. 3 "Look into this and tell me the situation. We'll decide together." This is has a subtle important difference to the above. This level of delegation encourages and enables the analysis and decision to be a shared process, which can be very helpful in coaching and development. 4 "Tell me the situation and what help you need from me in assessing and handling it. Then we'll decide." This is opens the possibility of greater freedom for analysis and decision-making, subject to both people agreeing this is appropriate. Again, this level is helpful in growing and defining coaching and development relationships. 5 "Give me your analysis of the situation (reasons, options, pros and cons) and recommendation. I'll let you know whether you can go ahead." Asks for analysis and recommendation, but you will check the thinking before deciding. 6 "Decide and let me know your decision, and wait for my go-ahead before proceeding." The other person is trusted to assess the situation and options and is probably competent enough to decide and implement too, but for reasons of task importance, or competence, or perhaps externally changing factors, the boss prefers to keep control of timing. This level of delegation can be frustrating for people if used too often or for too long, and in any event the reason for keeping people waiting, after they've inevitably invested time and effort, needs to be explained.

29

7 "Decide and let me know your decision, then go ahead unless I say not to." Now the other person begins to control the action. The subtle increase in responsibility saves time. The default is now positive rather than negative. This is a very liberating change in delegated freedom, and incidentally one that can also be used very effectively when seeking responsibility from above or elsewhere in an organisation, especially one which is strangled by indecision and bureaucracy. For example, "Here is my analysis and recommendation; I will proceed unless you tell me otherwise by (date)." 8 "Decide and take action - let me know what you did (and what happened)." This delegation level, as with each increase up the scale, saves even more time. This level of delegation also enables a degree of follow-up by the manager as to the effectiveness of the delegated responsibility, which is necessary when people are being managed from a greater distance, or more 'hands-off'. The level also allows and invites positive feedback by the manager, which is helpful in coaching and development of course. 9 "Decide and take action. You need not check back with me." The most freedom that you can give to another person when you still need to retain responsibility for the activity. A high level of confidence is necessary, and you would normally assess the quality of the activity after the event according to overall results, potentially weeks or months later. Feedback and review remain helpful and important, although the relationship is more likely one of mentoring, rather than coaching per se. 10 "Decide where action needs to be taken and manage the situation accordingly. It's your area of responsibility now." The most freedom that you can give to the other person, and not generally used without formal change of a person's job role. It's the delegation of a strategic responsibility. This gives the other person responsibility for defining what changes projects, tasks, analysis and decisions are necessary for the management of a particular area of responsibility, as well as the task or project or change itself, and how the initiative or change is to be implemented and measured, etc. This amounts to delegating part of your job - not just a task or project. You'd use this utmost level of delegation (for example) when developing a successor, or as part of an intentional and agreed plan to devolve some of your job accountability in a formal

30

Feed it Forward

Pick a behaviour you would like to work on. Work on this behaviour should make a significant, positive difference to you. It may be a behaviour you want to change or it may be something you want to strengthen.

Describe this behaviour to your partner one-on-one. It can be done quite simply, e.g., "I want to be a better listener." Or “I want to strengthen my English skills”

Ask for ‘feedforward’ that might help me achieve a positive change in my behaviour. The partner’s role is to give suggestions about things you could try. If you have worked together in the past, you are not allowed to give any feedback about the past. You are only allowed to give ideas for the future.

Listen attentively to the suggestions and take notes. Participants are not allowed to comment on the suggestions in any way, nor are they allowed to critique the suggestions, even to make positive statements, such as, "That's a good idea."

Thank the other participants for their suggestions.

Now ask your partner fellow participants what they would like to change about themselves.

Provide feedforward—two suggestions for helping the other person change.

Say thanks. (The entire process of both giving and receiving feedforward usually takes about two minutes.)

Find another participant and keep repeating the process until the exercise is stopped.

31

Values and Beliefs

Questions:

1. What does not get sacrificed/compromised for money or time?2. Look at actions and results of actions, rather than what people say3. What does it take to succeed around here..?4. What does it take to get something done around here? 5. What gets punished around here? 6. What gets rewarded around here?7. What do we discourage?8. We handle conflict by….9. Around here it is easy to….10. Around here it is difficult to….11. We think customers want us to be…

Then a matrix can be made of the list of behaviours in terms of adds value to the enterprise and adds value to teams high to low, with high/high being norms that should be preserved, low/low norms to be eliminated and the high/low combinations to be examined to adjust or improve their impact on the enterprise and teams. It is a rigorous exercise that is useful when done with safety and transparency.

High

Adds value to the

organisation

Low

Low HighAdds value to teams

32

A Cage of Monkey’s

A primate metaphor about sustaining dysfunctional cultures…

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with very cold high-pressure water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result -- all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm!

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. None of the monkeys that are beating him have any idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

A Cage of Monkeys

33