260 Management, leadership, coaching & business change models

December 27, 2009

Many of our readers have asked for us to add more slides to our downloadable models – so there they are… new for 2010

Management, Leadership models

Welcome to our summary of management, leadership, coaching, training, learning, occupational psychology and business models. This extensive collection is available to look at free here on the web, or you can download a set of images suitable for presentations. Have a look at what is available: See set 1 and See set 2

Over the years as professionals we have used many of these in our practice. We have been asked for copies… and here they are.

Please note that these are provided for educational purposes only, and we strongly encourage you to research the origins and use them only in the way in which they were intended.

We currently have 2 sets, not in any particular order. This is historical, as our first set was a real mixed bag, so is the second. In time we may well group them, however what we do not want to do is upset our current customers and force them to have to buy a set which contains mostly duplicates. In any-case, one of the advantages of putting sets together in this way is that it may inspire you to explore models you would not otherwise been exposed to.

Models See set 1 and See set 2

In addition we now have a complete set of blanks for you to add your own text.

The models cover: leadership, management, learning, training, business, marketing, change,… etc

See them at http://rapidbi.com/management/models-theories/


Strategic development: Are we missing the point?

April 5, 2008

We often talk about strategic programmes and actions, but are we taking the appropriate first steps?

This article looks at the steps we take and explores if we can be more strategic and add more value.

Introduction

Often we know where we want to get to, or at least have a good idea, but often as the old saying goes: “If I was going there, I would not start from here.”

That is a very logical reply, even if it is not advice that is of much immediate practical value to the questioner. If you don’t know where you are going, you are not likely to get there.

It is sound advice to know where you are and where you want to end up before starting the journey. Is this why many of the tourist maps have a ‘you are here’ marker?

Where are we now? Where do we want to be?

This is a simple yet basic step in any intervention, at any level within our respective organisations. Yet what is the extent to which we really do it? Where is the ‘you are here’ marker in our organisations? Sure, some of us have tools like customer satisfaction and staff engagement data (as well as the basic business financial measures), but holistic, strategic data?

In the 2007 survey, Develop the Developers (by Morrison & Ritchie), responders to the survey provided the following answers in response to development activities:

  • Use of diagnostic approaches:
    Always (8%); usually (33%); sometimes (46%); rarely (10%); never (4%).

  • Use of evaluation approaches:
    Always (37%); usually (43%); sometimes (15%); rarely (2%); never (2%).

This highlights why much of what we do in organisational development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) fails, on a regular basis, to make the desired (and recognised) strategic impact.

“How can we ever hope to evaluate any intervention effectively if we do not know where we started from?”

We have read many threads on community forums such as HRZone.co.uk and TrainingZone.co.uk about the difficulties of evaluating activity. How to calculate a return on investment (ROI) or show value for money is a commonly recurring theme.

How can we ever hope to evaluate any intervention effectively if we do not know where we started from? We will only know this by having the same measures at the beginning of an intervention as we want to use for measuring success after the event.

In business we do it – we look at the financial position (profit, turnover etc), we set a plan to achieve it and then we measure after an agreed period of time. In medicine, before a person starts treatment we have some measures – pulse, respiration, blood pressure and so on – we measure before and after (often on going) treatment. Why, in HR and HRD, do we not do the same? Often we do for things like retention, sickness and attendance – but not for the more strategic elements.

What is a diagnostic process?

It is often simpler than it sounds. It is a tool that identifies ‘where you are now’, the dot or arrow on the map if you like. Tools like SWOT and PESTLE are OK to start with, but often these tools are not used as effectively (or broadly) as they were originally intended.

Diagnostic tools that only look at the area of the business you are interested in, for example culture surveys, have their place, but how do you know that culture is the issue – where is the diagnosis to show that a specific tool like a culture survey is the right one? There may be a need with a higher priority.


“A regular, yet effective organisational diagnostic process not only evaluates previous actions but the same data can be used to identify future needs”

It’s like going to your doctor – they will not send you for a special test or scan, until they have undertaken a more general diagnosis. In HR and OD we need to do the same. We need to use holistic diagnostic tools to help us orientate to real needs – often we react to the symptoms. It is easy to treat the cut to the hand from a fall, but if we miss the reason for the person falling – for instance, a minor stroke – sure the hand will get better, but in the mean time the stroke can do more damage.

Making evaluation easier

The more robust the diagnostic process, the easier the evaluation. Some would argue than an evaluation is just a repeat of the diagnostic but with different analysis on the results. The diagnostic is looking for an action plan; an evaluation is looking for change since the last measure. So a regular, yet effective organisational diagnostic process not only evaluates previous actions but the same data can be used (in association with a business plan) to identify future needs. Here is a simple strategic cycle:

  • Holistic diagnosis

  • Analysis

  • Plan

  • Action

  • Diagnosis

Insanity in our world?

As the saying goes, the first sign of madness is doing the same thing as before and expecting different results. It can be a bit like watching a replay of a race and expecting someone else to win. Obvious when we think about it, but why do we do this with our business activity?

Looking back at the results from the Develop the Developer survey, I wonder why many interventions are evaluated, but with little or no formal diagnostic processes undertaken at all; then we wonder why evaluation is so difficult.

Do we, as professionals, not learn? Do we keep doing the same things (evaluation but no initial diagnosis) and wonder why we do not add as much value as we expect? Are we ‘mad’? Maybe we are just reluctant learners?


Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI Ltd, a consultancy specialising in helping individuals and organisations improve their business performance through people and organisation effectiveness.

addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = ‘joevallender’;

This version first published: – HR Zone, 1st April 2008
Categories: HR Strategy

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2006, 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained


Strategy and Tools in Business

March 26, 2008

Strategy and tools in business

Over the years a lot of good and bad stuff has been said about SWOT. Sure it is not the most robust of tools but when used in the way it was originally developed – it is a powerful tool.
Some people have argued that it is time to move on from SWOT to other things – in this piece we explore SOAR an appreciative Inquiry tool.

An interesting article on this topic was published in Ai Practitioner magazine ( http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bvobg ) (it is available here http://preview.tinyurl.com/26wk4v )for those that are not subscribers).

Having read the article, the SOAR approach to my mind makes the same mistake that many using the SWOT analysis do – and that is they miss the context. When the (highly researched) SOFT was changed to SWOT the new authors missed the point which is why the tool is often miss-understood. It was never designed to stand on its own, nor was it ever to be part of the direct action phase – it was a diagnosis and data capture tool.

The authors of this article to my mind make 2 fundamental mistakes:
1) they assume that all applications of SWOT are in the way they describe
2) they appear to ignore weaknesses and threads – apparently believing that their solution will soar (pardon the pun) over any difficulties.
Would the shareholders of Enron be in the position they are now in (extinct) if they had faced up to their threats and weaknesses, rather than focus on what they thought were their strengths?

The article clearly states in its summary
This article has attempted to address the strategy-to-execution gap. In doing so, we have discussed SOAR, a strengths-based framework that builds on the best points of SWOT (strengths and opportunities) in order to move beyond the “as-is” state of the organization’s environment to the “to-be”.

Yes this as a framework can be used as the authors state to take SWOT data and apply it – but SOAR in itself is not a diagnostic or orientation tool. Anyone using this as a diagnostic tool is going to make the same errors as 1000′s of people have done with inappropriate use of SWOT.
This thread has been started to help CIPD students (and others) complete their studies – and for that they must use SWOT and PESTLE – if they chose to use other tools they will need references – I cannot see any on the article .

Appreciative Enquiry has its place.
Appreciative Inquiry is a particular way of asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, a situation, or an organization. In so doing, it enhances a system’s capacity for collaboration and change. Appreciative Inquiry utilizes a 4-stage process focusing on:

  • DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
  • DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
  • DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
  • DESTINY (or DELIVER): The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.

The basic idea is to build organizations around what works, rather than trying to fix what doesn’t. It is the opposite of problem solving. AI focuses on how to create more of what’s already working.
This method is more positive in nature than many others, however it is as a strategy naive in that it assumes success breeds success – many organizations are in fact where they are now because they did solve problems and did not just focus on what works.


Would a company that currently makes plastic carrier bags be advised to use SOAR – or look at the external factors which may bring about the end of the need for their product?

Equally any diagnostic process needs to look holistically at the people and the processes – not just one or the other.

Is SWOT redundant?…..

No but it is sure made more reliable with additions of other models in the transition to application.

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.