In any business we need our people to both work hard, and yet we need them to remain fresh so that the performance is sustainable – that means each employee having a healthy work-life balance.
Evidence from recent research suggests that there are more women in “balance” than men. The good news is that over the last 5 years the data suggests that we are getting better at achieving balance.
8 Comments | 
management | Tagged: HR, leadership, work-life balance | 
Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
One of the sessions at this year’s #cipd11 annual conference was led by GSK, looking at the approach they took to transforming their organisation.
As many people know, the pharmaceutical industry (like many others) has over the last few years had to radically change some of their working practices and approaches. GSK was no exception.
Like many industries the culture and business climate that GSK is/ was operating within was changing. Customers and purchasers were changing their expectations.
For change to be effective, the team knew that it was not the launch of any change that was critical, but how to embed and ensure the initiatives around change actually “landed” fully in the business units.
To help drive the change, GSK identified three key levers:
All of these were to be supported through the development of resilience in the business, developing HR capability and identifying appropriate measures. Not just end point, but transitional ones.
For the change to happen, the leadership recognised that not only was the environment in which they were operating having to change (i.e. new markets, changing existing ones), but the way the organisation responded and adapted was vital. The metaphor they used was they described themselves as an “oil tanker” operating in a stormy sea, what they needs to do was transform from an oil tanker to an agile yacht, and be able to cope with both a rough and stormy environment as well as calm seas.
To achieve the organisational goals it was recognised that the monolithic approach was no longer sustainable. The organization at all levels needs to become more agile. To help achieve this, a program with the aim of “building change capability” was developed. This was a fusion of Organizational Development OD, LEAN and Project management. The goal was to streamline the “lab to Industrial scale process.
Part of this process involved looking at the top 200. The managed to create near to 100% movement in the top 200 population. This was achieved through a blend of internal transitions and external appointments. Retention was an important driver. Development of this and other key groups was fundamental and the GSK leadership development framework, was one of the development tools to support the transition
This framework comprised: Managing self, Leading others, Leading managers, leading leaders to lead the enterprise.
This development program was said to be
Using the “keep it short & simple” approach measures initially in the transition were quantitative rather than qualitative. For example “Do you hole quarterly talent reviews?” and “Do you have ‘ready now’ successors?”. These and other simple dashboard indicators were used to measure “embedding” the process rather than more complex and time consuming measures.
As part of the change, HR teams also needed to be developed to accommodate many of the changes. Much of this was driven through a survey of 300+ senior leaders which provided a focus on three themes:
HR and senior leaders all gained a lot from the changes to these processes, some of the key learning points the organization is looking to embed further include:
This is one in a series of articles outlining some of the talks at this years #cipd annual conferenec for HR professionals in the UK and internationally.
If you are a CIPD member
9 Comments | management | Tagged: change management, cipd member, cipd11, culture, leadership, LinkedIn, managing change, talent management | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Over the last couple of weeks I have been increasingly aware of the fact that coaching is seen as a panacea for people development, and yet each article I read seems to say very different things. Then last week I received some feedback on our “ready to use coaching training pack” (Manager as a coach) from a purchaser. Judging by the time to purchase to complaint they could not have read the materials however, feedback is feedback.
Let’s start here, the actual feedback I received is as follows (unedited)…
“I just purchased this Coaching Skills for Managers a few minutes ago and it is not what it appeared to be. The title is Coaching Skills for Mangers but the materials are about Coaching and Managing ASSIGNEMENS? This was very misleading as most Coaching Skills for Manager type classes are about learning better Leadership skills. Additionally, there was only 8 power point slides. I paid for (only) 8 slides?”
Let’s take these points one at a time:
There are some that would argue you cannot train coaching – it should be coached – so no visual aids are required at all!
Soon after this email I read a blog post by Exemplas entitled “Coaching – are we all talking about the same thing”. In this piece they point to a CIPD survey on work place coaching where the findings from a comprehensive survey showed that the majority of coaching taking place is by line managers as part of their management & leadership role. The survey also highlights that Coaching as a vehicle is now the primary training and development tool, and most often driven not by external training professionals, but managers with coaching skills. However there appears to be considerable variances in what coaching is and is not.
The skills needed by an external coach are very different from those required by the line manager as a coach. I just hope that when people talk about coaching they clarify what they mean and the nature of the relationship between the person being coached and the coach themselves.
Our article http://rapidbi.com/management/different-types-of-coaching/ outlines several of the main types and their differences.
In his blog Keith Rosen provides the following top ten reasons why coaching fails:
The Top Ten Reasons Why Coaching Fails When Managers Attempt to Coach Their Team
Simple – definitions of what it is… and what it is not are rarely stated, with many people believing that it is “common knowledge” what coaching is.
And secondly inconsistent approach with poor skills.
12 Comments | management | Tagged: Coaching, fail, leadership, style | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Published earlier this month is a fascinating article on some research looking at the perception skills of those people good at athletic compared with other academics. (View the article )
Who can cross a busy road more effectively, a footballer or a psychology student?
The experiment:
In a virtual reality environment standing on a treadmill, students found themselves parachuted into an alleyway between two buildings. Their instructions were simple, to walk out of the alleyway to the busy street in front of them, and within 30 seconds to select a “safe” time to cross the road. The virtual traffic was moving at a speed of between 40 & 55 mph. They were instructed to walk and not run.
The participants each undertook 96 crossings, sometimes without distractions, other times with personal music players, other times having conversations on mobile phones. The students were from a diverse range of sports, stamina, sprint, power, flexibility etc and the academics were from cross departments and schools. All were considered fit and healthy 19-22 years old. n=36
“Over all, there was an 85 percent completion rate,” in which students made it to the other side of the road without incident, said Laura Chaddock, a graduate student at the university and lead author of the study
There were some key findings:
What was the strategy used by athletes that others did not use?
It appears that the athletes crossed the road at the same pace as the academics What they did do was glance along the street a few more times than the academics, each time gathering slightly more data and processing it more speedily and accurately than the other students.
Transfer to business:
Taking the fact that the real difference was strategy, there are some interesting areas for leadership development and change management programmes for the future:
“Conclusions: The results suggest that participation in athletics relates to superior street crossing multitask abilities and that athlete and non-athlete differences in processing speed may underlie this difference. We suggest that cognitive skills trained in sport may transfer to performance on everyday fast-paced multitasking abilities.
(C)2011The American College of Sports Medicine”
Note, this is early research, but does have high face validity. There have been no moves to apply this to business environments, however if we want effective decision making, it does appear that we should hire athletes, or repeat “bite-size” learning for maximum application opportunity
8 Comments | management | Tagged: academics, athletes, brain, College Athletics, decision making, exercise, leadership, psychology, research | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
At RapidBI we use many management and leadership models and through the process of using them we have developed a library of 100′s.
These pages have proved so popular that we now offer unbranded PowerPoint slides for you to download and use.
Please note many of the models on the slides are copyright – please use appropriately.
Go back to page 1 of the models
Go back to page 2 of the models
[wp_eStore_fancy1 id=1]
|
Norman’s Reaction Model |
Organizational Effectiveness Under Change |
Product Placement – Change |
Performance Management System
|
Performance Management Model |
|
Change reaction model
|
Product lifecycle
|
Performance management system |
Performance Management
|
|
|
Personal Change/ Transition Curve |
Personal Competence Awareness Model |
Power Influence Model |
Price Quality Model |
PRIMO-F Holistic Review |
|
PRIMO-F SWOT analysis model – culture and values
|
|
Project Management Cycle |
Risk Management / Assessment |
Risk Management / Assessment |
Spend Effort Model
|
S-Curve |
|
Project Management model
|
Risk assessment and loss control leadership
|
Risk, Innovation
|
Product life cycle
|
|
|
Client Sales Organization |
Scenario Analysis Planning Model |
Schamner Change Model |
Schein Culture Levels
|
Service Cycle |
| Managing Change | ||||
|
Service Delivery |
Stakeholder Mapping Model |
Strategic Planning Model |
||
| Strategic planning model | ||||
|
Strengths Attractiveness Model |
Support Challenge Model |
Tannenbaun Schmidt Leadership Model |
Technology Learning Model |
|
|
Leadership continuum
|
|
Training Team Integration Model |
Transactional Analysis OK |
Transactional Analysis PAC |
Trust Risk Model |
|
|
TA.. i’m OK you’re ok
|
TA… Parent Adult Child model
|
Team development model
|
||
|
Turner Model |
U-Curve Presentation Planning tool |
|
||
|
Presentation planning curve
|
Marketing and strategy |
9 Comments | management | Tagged: business, leadership, Management, models, slides | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
At RapidBI we use many management and leadership models and through the process of using them we have developed a library of 100′s.
These pages have proved so popular that we now offer unbranded PowerPoint slides for you to download and use.
Please note many of the models on the slides are copyright – please use appropriately.
Go back to page 1 of the models
[wp_eStore_fancy1 id=1]
|
Conceptual Model |
Continuous Improvement Cycle |
Core Quadrants |
Creativity Cycle |
Culture Presentation
|
|
Creativity in Innovation
|
Organisational Culture |
|
Deming Cycle |
Debrief Cycle |
Developing Consulting Skills |
Development Cycle |
Development Cycle |
|
|
|
consulting model
|
|
|
|
Development Cycle |
Dilts Logical Levels |
Dunn Dunn Learning Model |
Dynamic Coaching Model |
Effectiveness |
|
NLP model
|
Coaching framework
|
Management effectiveness
|
||
|
Effort Reward Model |
Motivation Energy Model |
Entrepreneurial Balance |
FIRO-B |
|
|
Motivation
|
FIRO-B psychometric model
|
Force field analysis model – Lewin
|
|
Growing Winners |
Growth Cycle Model |
Guilford Learning Model |
||
|
Coaching Model goal setting model
|
GROW Coaching Model |
NLP model
|
Business and individual growth
|
Learning Theory
|
|
Hertzberg Motivation |
||||
|
Motivation theory
|
Learning Cycle
|
Learning cycle
|
|
Innovation Paradigms
|
IT Services Management Model |
Johari Window |
Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model |
Knowledge Transfer Model |
| Innovation Model |
Outsourcing
|
Training Evaluation model – ROI – Return on Investment
|
Innovation and knowledge transfer
|
|
|
Kolb Learning Styles |
Kolb Learning Theory |
Kubler Ross Transition curve |
Leadership Model – Will-Skill |
Learning Delivery Model |
|
Learning cycle
|
Learning cycle
|
Managing Change Kubler Ross change model
|
Leadership models
|
Learning Delivery
|
|
Management Cycle |
Managing Accidents
|
Managing Multiple Change |
Managing Risk |
|
|
Learning Model
|
Management Cycle
|
Health and safety, risk and loss control leadership |
Risk and Innovation
|
|
|
Maslow Needs |
MBTI styles |
McGregor Theory X Y
|
Managing Time Urgent Important |
Noelle Neumann |
|
Motivation Theory
|
Psychometric test model Myers Briggs Type Indicator |
Motivational theory |
Time management |
2 Comments | management | Tagged: business, leadership, Management, models, slides | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Today in London is the third day of underground railway (tube) strikes, and more and more people can and do work from home, thanks to broadband internet and powerful IT solutions. Indeed I am writing this from a café in Wandworth Common as we speak!
With more and more people able to remote work, and indeed many firms changing to a remote working culture it is strange that 1980s management practices are reducing employee productivity and engagement.
What do I mean?
A few weeks ago I was talking to a person I know who was saying that her boss had been on a management course and was changing the way they were doing things. I initially thought GREAT!! A win for learning and development, but no.. the manager had introduced a Monday morning whole office meeting. Of the face of it this seems reasonable. The meeting was to ensure that everyone knew what was going on and to be kept up to date with clients and business news etc.
Great… but… most of the workers are remote workers. This means everyone commuting at rush hour on a Monday. On top of this many workers were part time working professional mums. So they needed to arrange childcare just to attend a meeting.
If you look at the concept of having a “mandatory” face to face meeting on a weekly basis for everyone, this is a great idea, but why do it on a Monday morning. This is very much a flashback to the manufacturing “Total Quality” days of the 1980s, where everyone on the shop floor was involved in a briefing stating targets and clarifying problems before the weeks production started. This makes sense… but for a professional services function that is project based not production schedule bound…
Why have a meeting early in the morning? This means a horrid commute for many, increased costs of travel, its not very family (or parent) friendly. Had the meetings been set for midday, the boss would have engaged with people as they would not have to travel at peak, and many people are not “at their creative best” on a Monday morning in the dark mornings of autumn and winter!
Remote working makes sense
Why pay for office space when an employee can use a telephone and internet connection for 95% of their work, and for may that are not client facing or bound by production schedules, they can work almost any hours provided they are available for clients, suppliers etc. Last year I did a contract with a major international consultancy firm, people did not need to talk to each other, and indeed they tended to use instant messaging software to speak to people even when they were just a floor apart in the same building. Why have all these overheads? It does not make good business sense.
Provided there is appropriate social interaction and regular face to face meetings, many workers can work 95% of the time from home. So in this time of austerity and climate concern why not allow more people to work from home, reducing CO2 from transport, and costs of a business paying for floor space they do not need. One of the US based partners in the project I was working on spent 99% of their time home working, some never having met peers in the flesh, yet they were highly productive.
Times are changing and as managers, leaders and people developers we need to start to explore new ways of managing and leading people to ensure productivity and appropriate engagement.
12 Comments | management | Tagged: engagement, leadership, Management, remote working | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
This past week I have been in the UAE facilitating a 5 day leadership and strategic change program for international participants (none from the UAE). The brief was to share international best practice around all areas of leadership and change. For the majority they found the teaching and learning of great value, however there were some that acted as delegates. Not listening or interacting above the absolute minimum. They appeared to think that they were perfect leaders already and could learn nothing. A strange attitude for a person who has flown ¼ around the world to be away from family for a week.
The program started with the premise – look for the one think that you can take away and use, a lot of material will be covered, but there will be a golden nugget that is just right for you – your challenges is to identify it, hold it and apply it when they return to work.
What transpired over the week was that the situation was worse than I thought – they weren’t delegates at all but passengers. Passengers that did not choose that form of transportation but needed the destination. Ok I could live with that, we all need learning and sometimes the only vehicle open to us is one that it not a best fit to our preferences. But no. These “attendees” attend not for the learning, but the money their employer gives them to cover the costs of accommodation etc.
I discovered that the course fee is paid for by the organisation (depending on seniority they are allowed to attend several per year), along with airfare – but they are given a very generous allowance to expenses. This allowance can be more than the average worker earns in a year. So they stay in the cheapest hotel, eat poorly, but the culture is that they take gifts back for colleagues and family. They really do not want the training. It is an excuse for the employer to pay individuals money or give them a vacation. Maybe I am the last person on the planet to understand this, but my approach is to deliver what I have been contracted to deliver.
For the trainer/ facilitator this can make life very challenging (or for the bad ones they don’t even try!). Worse, it is education that is getting a poor reputation.
Last month there was a posting on TrainingZone in which a person was looking for 4 weeks training in the UK for some participants from the middle-east, when I called him it turned out that what they were really looking for was an excuse for a holiday under the banner of “training”.
Is it time for international providers to come up with a new label for “holiday based training” events. Maybe once upon a time they were called conferences, however even these have become respectable learning environments. What about “traincation” or “semication”. Where there is minimum learning and lots of time for rest, sight seeing and shopping. The more honest we all are the better for those that need real learning. The risk of course is that come providers understand this – and that is what they provide – the danger is that someone from another culture will book on to the programme and be very disappointed – or worse think that what they have experienced is a good model for learning.
9 Comments | management | Tagged: international, leadership, semication, traincation, training | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
The sixth in our series of sample templates of Training Needs Analysis templates – this one for looking at management and leadership skills.
TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT – For Management And Leadership
Introduction
An organization is basically constructed for a purpose. Business is (usually) to make profit; education is to touch the heart and teach the minds of its students, health care is to take care of the wellness of its patients, etc. These organizations comprise human resources that work on the fulfillment of its purpose. The attainment of the vision and mission of any organization depends on the direction of its leaders. Managing the organization’s business and leading its people would be a difficult task to an un-prepared individual assigned to be, as they say, “captain of the ship”. The purpose of this TNA is to make an analysis of your competency as managers and leaders/supervisors of your respective departments.
This is to help you nourish your strengths, improve your limitations and bring out your potentials.
Instruction: Kindly fill out the necessary information being asked. Encircle the number corresponding your response in each item following the legend below.
5 – Excellent 3 – Satisfactory 1 – Needs
4 – Very Satisfactory 2 – Fairly Satisfactory Improvement
Name: __________________________________ Department:____________________
Current Job Position:______________________________
No. of Years holding the position:____________________
Service Record in the Company:
| Position | Inclusive Dates | No. of Mos/Yrs |
Highest Educational Attainment: ____________________________________________
Managerial Capability
1. Planning: (1.1) sets company goal for the fiscal year 1 2 3 4 5
(1.2) identifies work to be done to attain the goal 1 2 3 4 5
(1.3) identifies who is accountable for the various
work in attaining company’s goal 1 2 3 4 5
(1.4) projects the needed resources in attaining
the goal 1 2 3 4 5
(1.5) provides contingency plan in case of plans
projected does not work 1 2 3 4 5
(1.6) sets evaluation tool for the company’s
performance 1 2 3 4 5
2. Organizing: (2.1) assigned person responsible for a
particular task 1 2 3 4 5
(2.2) identifies responsibility of each personnel 1 2 3 4 5
(2.3 sets time frame of the work to be done of
each personnel 1 2 3 4 5
3. Leading: (3.1) gives direction to the subordinates in
attaining the company’s goal 1 2 3 4 5
(3.2) sets a good example for his subordinates
to emulate 1 2 3 4 5
(3.3) make decisions and direct the work of
others 1 2 3 4 5
(3.4) builds a harmonious working relationship
among its subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
(3.5) nurture a pleasant culture of the organization 1 2 3 4 5
(3.6) maintains a harmonious working relationship
with fellow manager 1 2 3 4 5
(3.7) supports the decision of the higher authority 1 2 3 4 5
4. Coordinating: (4.1) conducts regular meeting with the
accountable person 1 2 3 4 5
(4.2) makes follow up of the tasks to be done 1 2 3 4 5
(4.3) assess company’s performance according
to plan 1 2 3 4 5
(4.4) assess departments’ performance based
on the given responsibility 1 2 3 4 5
(4.5) provides feedback on individual,
department and company’s performance 1 2 3 4 5
5. Controlling: (5.1) delegates work to others 1 2 3 4 5
(5.2) sets a standard of subordinates level of
performance in her/his job 1 2 3 4 5
(5.3) maintains the quality of service/product
that the company offers 1 2 3 4 5
(5.4) ensures that the tasks are done according to
schedule 1 2 3 4 5
(5.5) work to accomplish the task within the
budget allocation 1 2 3 4 5
6. Staffing: (6.1) identifies the needed staff in a department 1 2 3 4 5
(6.2) sets the standard competency of staff to be
hired 1 2 3 4 5
(6.3) hire an applicant staff based on the
competency she/he could perform 1 2 3 4 5
7. Motivating: (7.1) provides a conducive atmosphere at work 1 2 3 4 5
(7.2) recognizes the needs of its staff/workers 1 2 3 4 5
(7.3) supports the recreational activities of its
workers/staff 1 2 3 4 5
(7.4) listen to its staff/workers grievances 1 2 3 4 5
(7.5) recognizes the efforts of workers/staff
in attaining organizational goal 1 2 3 4 5
(7.6) share the blessing of the company to its
workers/staff 1 2 3 4 5
Coping with Stress
Instruction: Kindly tick the box(es) that you do as your recreational activities following the legend below.
4 – Often 2 - Occasional
3 - Regular 1 - Never
1 2 3 4
1. Watch Television program. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2. Watch a movie. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
3. Read magazine or books. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
4. Listen to favorite music [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
5. Practice deep breathing [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
6. Goes to the gym [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
7. Visualizes herself/himself as a healthy
and relaxed person [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
8. Do yoga meditation [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
9. Writes in the journal to account the days’
activity, blessing, accomplishment, etc. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
10. Play games (basketball, chess……) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
11. Take a walk in the park [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
12. Visit a SPA [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
13. Tend the garden, plant trees [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
14. Have a good talk and laughter with someone [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
15. Have a good sex with wife/husband/partner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
|
Training Evaluation This section focuses on the planning and evaluation aspects of the specific trainings that were identified for management and leadership skills. This can be used to present the idea for approval by upper management. |
|||
| Estimated budget
(Breakdown of projected expenses for duration of training) |
Resources
(Presentation materials, physical facilities, etc.) |
Documentation
(Consolidation of digital and hard data for presentation) |
Evaluation
(Focused on trainers, trainees, organizers, and training program) |
|
- Use a separate sheet if possible -
|
- Use a separate sheet if possible -
|
- Use a separate sheet if possible -
|
- Use a separate sheet if possible -
|
| Conclusion
|
How will this assessment tool help identify the training needs and motivation needed by the staff under management and leadership units for future training?
|
||
8 Comments | management | Tagged: development, example, leadership, Management, management development, managerial, sample template, skills, training needs analysis | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
David S. Walonick, Ph.D.
Power
The quest for power has dominated human history. One of the earliest works on the management of power was written by Niccolo Machiavelli, a political advisor to nobles during the early sixteenth century. In The Prince, Machiavelli laid out a set of principles that would help the nobles maintain their leadership and control over the populous. A few of the most important of Machiavelli’s assertions are:
· It is better to be a conservative rather than liberal spender.
· It is better to be feared than loved. One can be feared without being hated.
· The end justifies the means.
· Cunningness is preferable to integrity.
· Take opportunities to give dramatic rewards or punishments so they will be talked about.
· Offer help to parties that are less powerful than you.
· Do not take common cause with parties more powerful than you.
· Use counselors that are truthful, but who have a narrow focus.
· Acting impetuously is preferable to cautiously.
· Seek a reputation of severity instead of softness.
· Use care not to offend the powerful or those subservient to you.
Modern theories of management reject the underlying ethics of Machiavelli’s power principles. Power is maintained through fear, which is unacceptable because it involves the repression of the human spirit.
Yukl (1989) defines power “as an agent’s potential influence over the attitudes and behavior of one or more designated target persons” (p. 14). Yukl proposes a taxonomy to classify power in organizations according to its derivation–position, personal, or political.
Position power is frequently called “legitimate power” (French and Raven, 1959). It is derived from a person’s position in an organization and includes control over rewards, punishments, information, resources, rule-making, work assignments, and decision making. Subordinates comply with this form of power out of obedience to authority, loyalty to the organization, or respect for the hierarchical structure. In some way, they recognize the legitimacy of the authority. Membership in an organization can be viewed as a form of a “social contract”, where members agree to the rules in return for the benefits of membership (March and Simon, 1959).
Power derived from personal attributes comes from the interactions of a person with other members of the organization. One form of this power, dubbed “expert power” (French and Raven, 1959), comes from an individual’s expertise in solving problems or performing a particular task. Another form of personal power is derived from loyalties and friendships developed over a long period of time. French and Raven (1959) referred to this as “referent power”. Personal charisma is a form of referent power. People tend to be attracted to and identify with charismatic leaders. In a review of eighteen studies, Podsakoff and Schriesheim (1985) concluded that effective leadership is strongly associated with the use of referent power.
Political power involves deliberate attempts by groups or indiviudals to increase or maintain their existing level of power. It encompases actions to gain control or influence over decision making processes. Coalitions and alliances are often formed as part of the political process, and they often involve deliberate attempts to undermine the opposition to the coalition. For example, “co-optation” is a political strategy where an influential individual from the opposition might be allowed to participate in a decision making process, knowing that this will increase their commitment to the decision (Yukl, 1989).
French and Raven’s (1959) power taxonomy is similar to Yukl’s (1989) except that position power is subdivided into reward and coercive powers. In addition, French and Raven stressed that the different types of power are likely to be related in complex ways.
Social exchange theory (Hollander, 1958, 1979; Jacobs, 1970) attempts to explain how power is won and lost by understanding the interaction processes between individuals. The theory looks at how leaders emerge in groups as a result of their interactions with other members of the group. The weakness of the theory is that it only attempts to understand interactions after the fact, and it does not offer any guidelines for leaders on the acquisition or use of power.
Motivation
Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1954) focused on motivating forces in individuals, and established a “hierarchy of needs.” According to Maslow, individuals would move to satisfy their needs in a hierarchical manner. Once a need was satisfied, it no longer would have the ability to motivate. At the bottom of the hierarchy, were physiological needs, such as food, shelter, and sexual gratification. These were followed by safety needs (protection from environmental dangers), social needs (love and belonging), and esteem (self-respect and the approval of others). The highest need was self-fulfillment, which involved deriving a sense of value and satisfaction from one’s work. While people generally filled these needs in order, Maslow recognized that the hierarchy was flexible within individuals, and that priorities could vary. Maslow did not include money in his schema because of the ambiguity in the meaning of money. For some people, money is a way to achieve the basic requirements of food and shelter. Others view money as a measure to satisfy their need for self-fulfillment.
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) interviewed 200 engineers and accountants to explore what factors were motivating. They concluded that many factors that were thought to be motivating, such as pay and managerial style, were not motivating at all. Herzberg (1966) proposed that job statisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of a continuum, but rather represent two distinct variables. Intrinsic motivational factors (called “satisfiers”) included achievement, recognition, and responsibility. Extrinsic factors (called “hygiene factors”) consisted of things like pay, status, job security, and management style. Herzberg theorized that a lack of satisfiers would not cause dissatisfaction. The presence of hygiene factors would not cause satisfaction, but their absence would cause dissatisfaction. While Hertzberg’s two-factor theory generated considerable research, “repeated factor analytic studies of job attitudes have failed to demonstrate the existence of two independent factors corresponding to motivators and hygienes” (Campbell, 1970, p. 381).
During the early 1960′s, managers began to recognize that money, working conditions, and punishment were not effective long-term motivators. Douglas McGregor (1960) theorized that the emotional climate of work was an important motivating factor. He postulated two opposing theories. Theory X views people as lazy and unmotivated. It argues that people naturally avoid responsibility, and therefore, need to be controlled and directed. Threats of punishment and deprivation are compelling motivators. Theory Y, on the other hand, states that work itself is a gratifying motivator. People will use self-control to achieve a goal, and they will accept (and even welcome) responsibility. Evidence exists to support both theories, although most modern managers favor theory Y (Drucker, 1974).
McGregor was dissatisfied with the either/or interpretation of his theories, and in 1967 proposed Theory Z as a way for management to embrace the paradox by simultaneously accepting both points of view. McGregor’s Theory Z was never accepted or popularized. As Pascale (1990) points out, when Ouchi’s book Theory Z was published in 1981, very few people even remembered that McGregor had previously used the term.
Expectancy theory attempts to understand motivation as a process where workers rationally decide how much effort to devote to a job at any given time (Georgopolous, Mahoney, and Jones, 1957; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964). According to the theory, workers weigh the desireable outcomes (e.g., higher pay, promotion, recognition, etc.) against the undesireable outcomes (e.g., reprimand, layofff, stress, etc.). The probability of a perceived outcome is referred to as an expectancy, and the desirability of the outcome is its valence. A workers motivation is affected by the combination of expectancies and valences for each of the outcomes.
The reinforcement theory of motivation (also called contingency theory) is an outgrowth of the behaviorist school of psychology. Skinner is the most well-know proponent of the theory. The basic principles of the theory are: 1) reinforced behavior tends to be repeated, 2) reward is more effective than punishment, 3) feedback is necessary for improvement 4) rewards should be given without delay, and 5) rewards should be given for successive approximations of the desired behavior (Schneier, 1974).
Collins and Porras (1989) believe that motivation is the result of people doing a job that they think is worthwhile. They assert that motivation is not something that needs to be cultivated directly. Instead, it is a natural outcome of workers’ who believe in the mission, vision, and purpose of an organization. The “purpose” of an organization is a set of broad, enduring, inspirational, and fundamental reasons for the existence of the organization. The purpose provides a clear sense of direction by stating what members of the organization want to contribute to the world. The “mission” is a clearly defined and achievable goal. It provides a focal point of motivation. The “vision” is usually defined as being able to foresee the future, and developing a plan to meet the future needs. Collins and Porras (1989) define vision as “the ability to see the potential in or necessity of opportunities right in front of you. . . vision isn’t forecasting the future, it is creating the future by taking action in the present.” (p. 87)
Approaches to the Study of Leadership
Yukl (1989) identified four approaches for studying leadership. The “power influence approach” attempts to understand leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount and type of power possessed by the leader. This approach would examine how power is acquired, lost, and maintained. The “behavior approach” looks at the actual tasks performed by leaders. This involves evaluating daily activities and behavioral characteristics of leaders. The “trait approach” looks at the personal attributes of leaders, such as energy, intuition, creativity, persuasiveness, and foresight. The “situational approach” examines leadership in terms of its relationships with environmental factors, such as superiors, subordinants, and peers. This approach is often referred to as contingency theory because the role of the leader is contingent on the situation.
Another consideration in the study of leadership is that most theorists believe that managerial and leadership skills are different. “Leaders create and articulate vision, managers insure it is put into practice” (Syrett and Hogg, 1992, p.5).
Kotter (1990) elaborates on the differences. Management focuses on dealing with complexity, while leadership involves dealing with change. Management is committed to planning and budgeting, while leaders formulate and vision and set an organizational direction. Management is concerned with organizing and staffing, and leadership involves aligning people to a shared vision. Management is controlling and problem solving; leadership is motivating and inspiring.
Bennis (1990) also makes a strong distinction between leading and managing. A leader is a conceptualist with an entrepreneurial vision. A leader needs to be concerned with the big picture and the long-range future of an organization. Managers, on the other hand, are concerned with day-to-day routine operations, and part of their objective is to isolate leaders from these operations.
Are the qualities of managers and leaders mutually exclusive? Can a single person possess both leadership and management skills? Kotter (1990) believes that “smart companies value both kinds of people and work hard to make them part of the team.” Even more importantly, “they can begin to groom their top people to provide both.” (p. 16-17)
Vision
Vision “periodically provides an organization with a feeling of unity in its sense of direction” (Dilenschneider, 1992, p. 24). Dilenschneider argues that even in the best organizations, unity of purpose only occurs for brief periods of time. “It’s self-interest that drives moment-by-moment behavior in almost all organizations, unless you’re talking about a band of saints.” (p. 25)
According to Dilenschneider (1992), there are three ways for a leader to develop a vision. The first is for the leader to develop a personal vision and to then communicate it to the organization. This relies heavily on the leader’s ability to communicate the vision to the organization, and to persuade the members of the organization to accept it. The second is to buy a vision by hiring a consultant. According to Dilenschneider, the disadvantage of this method is that it often results in a “canned solution” that has been watered down so that it is adaptable to many organizations. In contrast, Kotter (1990) states that “what’s crucial about a vision is not its originality but how well it serves the interests of important constituencies — customers, stockholders, employees — and how easily it can be translated into a realistic competitive strategy.” (p. 19) The third way to develop a vision is to assemble the top managers to create a consensus vision. Dilenschneider argues that the collaborative creation of vision “probably leads to the most durable and effective results.” (p. 17) In effect, Dilenschneider is proposing a variation of the Delphi forecasting method as a way of creating a vision.
Communicating a vision is obviously as important as its creation. This involves more than simply articulating its message. A vision must be communicated through clearity of action. Dilenschneider (1992) emphasizes that need to know “inside-out” communications, where managers examine the communication process itself. (p. 20)
Sustaining a vision may be more difficult than its creation. Conviction is the glue that gives a vision staying-power. Dilenschneider (1992) points out that sucessful leaders “have recognized how important it is to sell rightness emotionally, not just intellectually.” (p. 24) This provides the fuel for sustained focus (i.e., conviction).
Vision and organizational culture are linked, each having an effect on the other. Dilenschneider (1992) writes that the vision of a leader in a new organization shapes the culture, while in mature organization, the leader must choose a vision that accomodates the exisitng organizaitonal culture. Unlike many theorists, Dilenschneider believes that corporate culture is “shaped by lore” (p. 26), and thus requires generations to make significant changes. Ritualized behavior, established over long periods of time, are especially immutable to change. Dilenschneider recommends that leaders find ways to support positive rituals, and to keep the vision in harmony with the organizational culture.
Leadership Style
Psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) studied leadership methods by designing an experiment to compare autocratic and democratic leadership styles. As the experiment progressed, one of the democratic leaders was recategorized as laissez-faire. The autocratic leaders groups tended to be quarrelsome and work progressed at a modest rate. When the leader was not present, work came to a halt. The laissez-faire group ran haphazardly and work progressed at a slow rate. The democratic groups ran smoothly even when the leader was absent, and the relationships of group members were more friendly. Democratic leaders openly discussed issues with group members and encouraged them to join in making decisions. Uris (1964) argues that effective managers use all three methods of leadership depending on the particular circumstance.
During the 1950s, leadership studies were conducted at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The Ohio State leadership studies (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Hemphill and Coons, 1957) resulted in the creation of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), a commonly used instrument to assess leadership behavior.
The Ohio State studies used a 150 item questionnaire to examine how subordinants perceived their supervisor’s behavior. Factor analyses of the questionnaire revealed two behavior constructs, which were later labeled “consideration” and “initiating structure”. Consideration included those items that indicated a leader’s friendliness, supportiveness, and compasion. Initiating structures were items that indicated the degree of structure that a leader imposed on subordinants (e.g., deadlines, assigning tasks, and following standard procedures). In a large correlational study, Fleishman and Harris (1962) reported that turnover rate was negatively correlated with consideration, and positively associated with initiating structure, although they emphasized the nonlinearity of the relationships. “There appear to be certain critical levels beyond which increased Consideration or decreased Initiating Structure have no effect on turnover or grievance rate.” (p. 53) In a summary of literature, Yukl (1989) reports that the effect of consideration has been confirmed, but the results of studies on initiating structure have not been clear or consistent.
The University of Michigan leadership studies (Katz and Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, and Morse, 1950; Katz, et al., 1951) were a series of correlational studies to examine the relationships between leadership behavior, group processes, and group productivity. Manager effectiveness was equated with group productivity. In a summary of these studies, Likert (1961) writes that three types of leadership behavior were found to be good predictors of management effectiveness: task-oriented behavior, relationship-orientated behavior, and participative leadership. Task-orientated behaviors are the same as the initiating structures in the Ohio studies, and relationship-orientated behaviors are similar to the consideration construct in the Ohio studies. The difference between the two studies was that the Michigan study viewed participative leadership as separate from the other relationship-orientated behaviors.
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership refers to the degree that to which other people can influence the leader’s decisions. It is interesting to note that this is nearly the opposite of the definition of power. Yukl (1989) presents a taxonomy of four decision making procedure categories. 1) The autocratic decision is where the manager seeks no input from other people. 2) The consultation decision is where the manager seeks opinions from others, but makes the decision alone. 3) The joint decision is where the manager and others discuss the problem and make a joint decision. 4) The delegation decision is one where the manager gives others the authority to make the decision. Yukl is careful to point out that decision making is actually a continuum instead of discrete categories.
The first studies on participative leadership were conducted by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1939. Hundreds of studies have been conducted since that time with mixed results. Claims have been made that participative management results in improved decisions, facilitation of change, identificaiton with leadership, and a high level of achievement (Williams and Huber, 1986).
Recent literature reviews and meta analyses have been inconclusive (Miller and Monge, 1986; Schweiger and Leana, 1986; Wagner and Gooding, 1987). Sometimes participative leadership works, and other times it doesn’t. Generally, studies that used questionnaires to assess employee satisfaction found positive results, while those that used objective measures of productivity were weaker and inconsistent. Most research in participative leadership has consisted of short-term field studies. Yukl (1989) argues that many of these studies may have been actually measuring the “Hawthorne effect”, a temporary positive effect from being the focus of attention.
Situtational Leadership Theory
Situtational leadership theory refers to belief that the relative importance of leadership behaviors depends on the situation. Aspects of the situation that modify the importance of behavior are called situational moderator variables.
Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed the LPC contingency model to predict leadership effectiveness from a measure called the least preferred coworker score. The leader is asked to grade their least favorite worker on a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g. pleasant versus unpleasant, friendly versus unfriendly, gloomy versus cheerful). The scales are arranged so that the most lenient learder would recieve the highest LPC score. Fiedler’s rationale was that leaders who received high LPC scores were primarily motivated to have positive relationships, and that the achievement of task objectives was secondary. The degree to which LPC scores correlated with effectiveness was modified by a “situational favorability variable”. The situational favorability variable consisted of three aspects of the situation: leader-manager relations, position power, and task structure. Leadership effectiveness was associated with good leader-manager relations, high postion power (authority), and high task structure. Fiedler’s LPC theory was originally well received, however, empirical support for the model has been weak (Yukl, 1981).
Another contingency model was proposed by Fiedler in 1986. Cognitive resource theory attempts to examine the conditions whereby intelligence, experience, and expertise become predictive of leadership effectiveness. Fiedler proposed that the effect of cognitive resources becomes significant only when the leader is directive, when there is little stress, and when the leader has some expertise that cannot be performed by subordinants. The theory predicts that in low-stress situations, the leader’s intelligence has an strong impact on effectiveness, and in high-stress conditions, the leader’s expertise is more important.
Managerial Traits and Skills
Early studies on managerial traits were limited to standardized intelligence and apptitude tests. Stogdill (1948) reviewed 124 early studies on managerial traits. The review concludes that “a person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits. . .” (p. 64). More recents studies have also tested for job-relevant technical knowledge and administrative skills. In a 1974 review of 163 more recent studies, Stogdill reversed his earlier position, and concluded that:
The leader is charaterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consquences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. (p. 81)
Bass (1981) has pointed out that certain leadership traits increase the likelihood of a leader’s effectiveness, however, they do not guarantee it. He advocates a contingency model, where to a large degree, the importance of a particular trait depends upon the nature of the leadership situation.
Most theorists have a unique list of competencies which they believe are important to leadership success. While there is some overlap, the diversity of opinions is surprising. As revealed by the following examples, there seems to be little agreement on the most important leadership attributes.
Bennis (1990) identifies four leadership competencies. 1) Management of attention through a compelling vision; 2) Communication skills necessary to transfer a vision to others; 3) Being able to establish trust through reliability and constancy; and 4) Knowing one’s skills and employing them effectively.
Giblin (1990) defines a four-attribute framework for assessing leadership qualities: 1) resourcefulness, 2) astuteness, 3) compatibility, and 4) knowledge. An individual posessing these qualities is likely to be perceived as a leader by others.
Dilenschneider (1992) cites five ingredients for leadership: 1) vision and focus, 2) practical values, 3) awareness and use of time, 4) empowerment and motivation, and 5) objectivity and judgement. According to Dilenschneider’s theory, there are five core organizational values (integrity, accountability, diligence, perseverance, and discipline). Leaders derive power by adopting a set of values consistent with those deemed worthwhile by the organization.
Rolf Osterberg (1987) identifies five “components of awareness” essential for business leadership. 1) Hierarchies based on power are detrimental to personal development, and must be eliminated. 2) The managers role becomes one of “coordinating a self-organizing, self-renewing and self-transcending system.” (p. 69) 3) Problems are not deferred to higher levels (since there are none), but instead are solved by the workers who have the problems. 4) Goal setting is eliminated because it does not encourage exploration and personal development. 5) Profits are reinvested in the company and not used to support other processes. Osterberg admits that these premises will be a threat to established organizations. He also acknowledges that attempts to persuade them will be futile. Instead, he recommends that documented examples “will speak much more loudly than any statistics. Every such example will be a stone thrown into the water spreading its ripples. Let us trust the ripple effect which has its own life and its own power.” (p. 71)
Conflict and Stress
A common misperception is that the long hours and demands of higher levels of authority are associated with higher levels of stress. However, research has shown that nonexecutives experience more stress than executives, and that blue-collar workers have the most stress of all (Williams and Huber, 1986).
Conflict within organizations is a source of stress. Classical theorists believed that conflict could be dealt with by exercising a strong dose of authority. Neoclassical theorists attempted to eliminate conflict through improved communications and understanding. Neither approach is entirely acceptable to modern theorists.
Today, organizational researchers recognize both the positive and negative contributions of conflict. It is simplistic to think that conflict in organizations can be eliminated. Power struggles, disagreements over goals, competition among workers, overlapping and abiguous responsibilities, personality clashes, and labor-management polarizations are all potential sources of conflict. The negative aspects of conflict are readily apparent, resulting in violence, stress, insomnia, and a host of other delaterious effects. In contrast, Schmidt (1974, p. 5) reported several positive outcomes from conflict:
· Better ideas were produced.
· People were forced to search for new approaches.
· Long-standing problems surfaced and were dealt with.
· People were forced to clairfy their views.
· The tension stimulated interest and creativity.
· People had a chance to test their capacities.
Confilict can serve as an catalyst for change. It can inspire people to search for new solutions to problems. Conflict creates stress, which can be destructive and painful (distress), or invigorating and motivating (eustress).
During the early 1950′s, Daniel Funkenstein (1957) conducted a series of experiments at Harvard to study how people deal with stress. He looked at peoples’ emotions after they had been scolded and chided. Funkenstein found that people reacted differently to stress. Some directed their anger inward, while others directed their anger at others. Stress manifested itself in negative ways (e.g., fright, panic, and apprehesiveness), and positive ways (e.g., performance anxiety). People also differed in the degree of emotion evoked by the stressful situation. Funkenstein reported that the most successful way of dealing with stress was either with no emotion, or with performance anxiety.
Karl Albrecht (1979) argues that stress is basically a negative emotion that manifests itself through body signals, such as a nervous stomach, clammy hands, perspiration, and headaches. Albrecht maintains that body signals provide access to our inner feelings that are not available through intellectual analysis. Deep relaxation techniques are recommended as a way of eliminating stress.
Peter Serge (1990) views some forms of tension as a positive factor, and states that “people with high levels of personal mastery have a great tolerance for living with creative tension.” (p. 132) He also recognizes that “emotional tension” can occur when we are honest with ourselves about the gap between where we are and where we want to be. These manifest as sadness, disappointment, hopelessness, and anger.
Obsolescence
Obsolescence is an important issue in today’s working environment. Prior to the industrial revolution, the training that one received as an apprentice would last for their lifetime. Increasingly rapid technological changes have made it necessary for many people to update their training every ten or fifteen years. (Uris, 1986) For example, until recently graphic designers’ produced layouts by “keylining” (i.e., cutting and pasting). Many years of training were needed to acquire the requisite precision. In the last five years, desktop publishing has replaced keylining to such a degree that nearly all graphic design is now done on the computer. Those designers who have not updated their training find less work available, and those who have updated their training find themselves being replaced by newly-trained younger workers who are willing to work for less wages. In addition, younger workers cost less in medical and pension expenses.
Quality of Work Life
The quality of work life (QWL) is an outgrowth of the human relations movement. Its goals are to increase productivity, while at the same time improve employee satisfaction by addressing the emotional needs of workers. The purpose of QWL management is to create an atmosphere of freedom, participation, and autonomy in which the worker is a partner in sharing a common objective.
Richard Walton (1985), one of the founders of the QWL approach, identified eight factors to improve the working life of employees. These are:
1. Fair compensation – Workers should receive sufficient pay and benefits to reach an acceptable standard of living, and the pay should be similar to others performing equivalent work.
2. Safety and health – The work environment should not pose any physical or environmental dangers to workers.
3. Self-development – Management must find ways that enable workers to develop themselves.
4. Growth and security – Training should be provided to avoid obsolescence, and workers should be encouraged to make use of their advanced skills.
5. Social integration – Management needs to provide an atmosphere of encouragement and openness that is free from prejudice.
6. Constitutionalism – Management must recognize that workers have rights, and workers need to be assured that they have a way to protect those rights.
7. Life space – Management must recognize that employees have life outside of work, and they should look for ways to minimize the impact of working life on the workers’ families.
8. Social relevance – The company maintains high ethics, and acts responsibly with respect to its products, marketing, and the environment.
Many companies have adopted the QWL approach, but it has not been without problems. Implementing QWL procedures has often been troublesome. Some workers, and even top management, have been slow to integrate these changes into their thinking. Initial enthusiasm sometimes diminishes when immediate results of the QWL approach are not recognized. Workers occasionally feel that their new roles and status have been diminished as a result of QWL implementation.
Resistance to Change
One of the problems in implementing new ideas in companies is that both workers and management are often resistant to even minor changes. Psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) developed a “field” approach to evaluate the positive and negative factors affecting change. Lewin observed that change involved a three-step process: unfreezing, moving, and then refreezing on a new level. Lewin reported that behavior would frequently return to the previous level unless a “force field” was created to stablize the behavior on the new level.
There are three major factors that make change threatening in organizations (Uris, 1986). The first is that sudden announcements and unexpected developments make people feel like they have no control. Resistance is a way of coping with an unexpected situation. The second is that people often see change as threatening to their positions of authority. The third is that people fear that change will result in some kind of loss, such as status or privileges.
Management can counteract these fears by implementing a program that includes the people who will be affected by the change. This begins with an announcement that clearly justifies the need for change. Management seeks the cooperation and acceptance of the workers by minimizing the negative effects and maximizing the positive effects. Most importantly, management should seek the participation of the workers in the planning process. Requesting workers opinions and suggestions will provide valuable information to management, and it will also make workers’ feel a part of the process (Uris, 1986).
Empowerment
According to Jaffe and Scott (1992), “empowerment means that the organization shifts from limiting the power to determine its future and how it will get there to a few top executives, to include every level of the organization in the process.” (p. 140) They believe that human resources like creativity, innovation, and motivation are the keys to successful organizations
Unlike many theorists, Jaffe and Scott (1992) do not equate empowerment with the maximization of personal freedom. On the contrary, they stress that freedom is constrained by a commitment to organizational visions, and that workers knowingly and willingly accept the organization’s need to control the resources and information. They argue that “empowerment is not an individual process” (p. 141), but rather, it requires an organization willing to make structural changes to create a context for new behaviors.
Effective leadership manifests itself throughout an organization by empowering its members. Bennis (1990) list four themes of empowerment.
· People feel they are making a difference.
· People regard learning and competence as important.
· People feel they are part of a community or family.
· People believe their work is exciting.
Haas (1990) describes an empowered organization as one that has “shed the traditional authoritarian practices.” (p. 106) The manager becomes a facilitator rather than a decision maker.
Trust is critical to the process of empowerment. (Dilenschneider, 1992) A leader must have a genuine trust in the organization and its workers. Ouchi’s (1981) book on Japanese management practices stresses the importance of supervisors who have a high level of trust in their subordinants.
survey software to design online surveys and questionnaires David’s free web survey software will create sophisticated internet surveys as well as written questionnaires and scripts for telephone interviewing. Plus, you’ll find information on questionnaire design and marketing research methods.
9 Comments | management | Tagged: Bennis, empowerment, emptional needs, Haas, leadership, lewin, Management, Managerial Traits and Skills, motivation, Participative Leadership, quality of work life, QWL, Situtational Leadership Theory, stress, walonick | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Deep-Dive™ is the name of a technique used to rapidly immerse a group or team into a situation for problem solving or idea creation. This approach is often used for brainstorming product or process development.
History
Originally developed by the IDEO group (a learning design company) for rapid product development, the Deep-Dive technique is now widely and increasingly used for innovation not only in product development, but process improvement and customer service strategies. The method used by IDEO was documented by Andy Boynton and Bill Fischer (of International Institute of Management Development (IMD) business school), who latterly further enhanced the process and sold the rights to Deloitte Consulting in 2006.
This approach to innovation often focuses on four distinct areas: Process, Organisation, Culture, and Leadership.
The key to a successful Deep-Dive session(s) is for participants to arrive with information about the needs of their customers – and most importantly an open mind of what they can offer and how they can meet clients needs and expectations.
Often Deep-Dive sessions are run off-site, this has the disadvantage of helping to ‘educate’ the participants that they can only think ‘off-site’. To help support and engender a spirit of creative thinking it is recommended that all Deep-Dive sessions occur on-site.
Deep Dive as a team development process
In the current economic climate it is simply not good enough for an individual team to achieve results. The application of the Deep-Dive methodology, can enable an organisation to improve the performance of teams across the organisation.
Not all teams are equal, and not all are effective. This can often result in lost opportunities and negative bottom-line impact for the organisation.
In the situation when an organisation is undergoing significant ‘change’, frustration with team performance has encouraged many organisations to employ “quick fix” solutions. This will often mean engaging additional resources from outside the organisation (new staff, consultants, interim etc) to facilitate training and development activities as well as to make improvements in technology and available facilities. Despite these well intentioned solutions and the potential for substantial payback, truly high-performing teams are rare (Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith).
These quick fix solutions focus on Maslows hygiene factors rather than on what it takes to engender a high performing team. Providing the team the latest technology, an agenda, a facilitator, a timekeeper, a leader, and a sense of mutual respect does not necessarily mean that they will achieve the desired results. A clear goal, resources, expectations of success and developing that sense of synergy working towards Maslows “Self Actualisation” for the team and all of its members. This is what the Deep-Dive process is designed to do – when run and integrated to the organisation as a whole.
Deep Dive – A five step process
Hot Teams in a Deep Dive process
Effective brainstorming technique
Six ways to stop a brainstorm session
Producing new and good ideas, even in an ideal environment, is hard work. Here is a critical list of techniques to avoid to stopping the process in its tracks:
Once the idea generation and capture phase is completed a number of ideas should be ‘prototypes’ to see how they may or may not work. An idea should not be progressed to implementation until it is been prototyped and tested along with a number of other ideas. This is a common mistake in many brainstorming processes.
Rapid prototyping involves putting brainstormed ideas together and building or trying out ideas, concepts or processes.
Trying or testing involved participants walking through or role playing customers, suppliers and other parties to test or explore the merits of the proposal.
At the centre of this approach, prototyping is an act of visual and interactive brainstorming. By making something, be it an object or a physical experience, you can ‘see’ and experience it in a new way. This approach suddenly makes ideas more tangibly, making your goal closer at the same time it highlights issues that weren’t obvious when it was merely just a good idea on a board or flip-chart.
Once you have decided on an idea to develop, it is time to start prototyping! This means making a quick model, a 3D sketch, to illustrate your idea.
Rules for Rapid Prototyping in innovation:
Allow 30-45 minutes to make your prototype model
Observing & Listening from Customers (internal and external)
Customers count – if they do not want your idea, product or service, why invest time effort and money in developing it?
So many products are invested in and developed when if is obvious (to those observing) there is no real need – just watch the typical ‘Dragons den’ programme.
Customers need to be involved right from the start – your real ‘experts’ are you customers…. not your ‘specialists’.
Think of products in terms of verbs rather than nouns
We talk of phones, TV’s, computers, Blackberry etc.
What we need to do in order to be more innovative is think about these objectives as.. Mobile Phoning, watching interactions, computing, mobile emailing etc.
To focus on the verb rather than the noun enables us to look at the process and outcome as one, rather than objects and tasks.
Process – Organisation – Culture – Leadership
Process
Organisation – Flat structure focused on learning. No type-casting allowed.
Culture – Trust in team members is vital and central to this methodology. Don’t always listen to the ‘boss’. Do the contrary!
Leadership – The team leader only facilitates, they are not the expert. Their role is solely to coach the process, but not involved in ideas. This allows freedom. This process is consistent.
Being innovative in a corporate environment
Robert Sutton in his book ‘Weird Ideas that Work’ states the following as approaches to explore in the development and journey towards being an innovative organisation:
Weird Ideas that Work: 11½ Practices for Promoting, Managing, and Sustaining Innovation. Sutton, Robert I. 2002. New York: Free Press
Creatrix and the Innovation Equation
Notes
The ‘Deep-Dive’ methodology is ™ and © Deloitte Consulting since they purchased the IP and © from IDEO.
39 Comments | management | Tagged: blue sky thinking, Brainstorming, culture, deep-dive, ideo, leadership, organisation, process, technique | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
The term performance management has been with us for some time, developed out of “appraisals”, Performance Management remains one of the consistently used phrases in the human resources and management field. Recently the CIPD has conducted some research into performance management recently and the responses from 507 people are interesting.
This short article looks at three of the outputs from that research and explores the potential meaning for HR, OD and managers involved in Performance Management.
From the graph it can be seen that different organisations appear to have a different meaning. For some it is about appraisal for others it is about 360s and competence.
Why do Performance Management?
This was one of the questions asked in the survey, and to me there is one main reason – to ensure people have the skills required and deliver the required performance – so you can guess I was very surprised to see the survey results:
As most seem to be saying that it is intended as a benefit for the individual – why do so many individuals dislike the process? have you ever spoke to a “typical employee” and they said you you in a happy tone “I have my appraisal today” – it does happen, but it is the exception rather then the norm. Indeed a few minutes on the web and you can find page after page of results listing why staff dislike the process, and that performance management is a good thing for the organisation.
So why the mis-match with this research?
Maybe it is down to understanding. In the survey, professionals were asked what they considered Performance Management to be:
With such diverse answers as “regular review meetings”, appraisal, 360 feedback, I can only hope that managers and HR professionals in a given organisation all agreed as to what the process is, and who it is for.
Judging by this research we should stop the process. If it is not adding value to the organisations bottom line through ensuring a sensible level of performance through clear objectives and appropriate skills and knowledge, why do it?
Performance management however you describe it is costly from both a line management point of view and a time perspective. In difficult trading and economic conditions we need to ensure that we all focus on what is important. As this seems to be an area where there is confusion and lack of clarity, then maybe it is time to drop this long standing approach, it was after-all only introduced to cover the non performance of managers managing their people in the first place – so if the managers aren’t managing and the process is not covering the ‘gap’ why bother?
What does Performance Management mean to you, your managers and importantly your people? Who is it for, and how do you measure the results?
This research can be downloaded from the CIPD site Performance management in Action
15 Comments | management | Tagged: 360, appraisal, cipd, employees, HR Human Resources, leadership, Management, managers, performance management, research, review meetings, staff satisfaction | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Thanks to the success of our 100 management models, RapidBI is proud to announce the launch of set #2 – another 100+ management models. Again in a simple graphical form you can use in your presentations and training courses.
As 2010 is almost upon us the old set have been updated and refined. A new cleaner style has been developed by one of our designers.
The new set contains more models covering:
Purchasers of the current set will be sent a discount code to purchase set 2 early in 2010 – so watch this space.
Also being developed to show off these models and graphics is a new gallery – come back just before Christmas 
In addition to this exciting addition to our downloadable products, RapidBI will be launching an e-book which will contain not only 50+ of our most asked for models, but guidance as to how to use the models in your practice. Watch this space.
6 Comments | management | Tagged: Coaching, JPEG, jpg, leadership, learning, Management, models, PowerPoint, ppt, theories | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Last week in a tweet I mentioned fad-surfing and some of my followers were not aware of this and requested an article – so here it is! Fad surfers are the management or leadership equivalent of the magpie, they love collecting shiny new things from other people. A management or leadership style where there is a lot of sizzle but little substance
What is “fad surfing”?
In simple terms
Adopting one fashionable management style or strategy after another.
The term was first brought into print in 1993 in an article by T. George Harris called “Fad-Surfers, Risk-Dodgers, and Beloved Companies,” in the Harvard Business Review. Harris quoted Eileen C. Shapiro as saying “Too many consultants and clients end up fad-surfing together rather than working on the real problems…”. Subsequently Shapiro went on to publish the book “Fad surfing in the board room” in 1995.
To me fad-surfing is one of the worst traits of a leader, manager or consultant. It is one where management jumps on to the latest bandwagon of ideas, thoughts and concepts to initiate change. It has become commonplace, although the term “fad-surfing” has been conveniently forgotten. Fad-surfing is going from idea to idea because the previous concept has not delivered what was expected, as fast as was expected. Much like this change model:
Where there is pressure for change >>> Implement initiative >>> Results fall below expectations >>> A new “fad” is sort to resolve the under-performance >>> leads to more work…. and the cycle continues.
Some of the historical management fads have included:
Well you get the idea! And its not just business that we have fad surfers – Bottled water, food/ cooking, TV producers, fashion, automotive, building design, software, social networking… etc.
Shapiro defines fad-surfing (n) as: the practice of riding the crest of the latest management panacea and then paddling out again just in time to ride the next one; always absorbing for managers and lucrative for consultants and frequently disastrous for organizations.
Leaders which have their own goals and vision may well seek out a model, theory of approach to support the implementation of their idea, however they do not attempt to implement a strategy because they read about it in their preferred journal or heard an idea at a conference. Riding an idea is not in itself a bad thing – it is what we do next that counts. Implementing a culture change or management style can take many months or years to embed properly. As the saying goes practice makes permanent – so practice right!
We know from cognitive studies that habits take time to learn and unlearn. the same is true when implementing a new idea or concept. It is not just a simple logical change. We want people to change and adapt their behaviours, often physical and mental habits. For that we need to give people the tools and the time.
To change a habit
To change habits at an individual level according to Professor Ian Newby-Clark there are five things that we each need to individually do:
This of course is on the assumption that we want to change – this is not always the case when the organization insists on a change!
Change your habit in 21 days…
Well maybe not… There is an often repeated statistic that you can change your habits in 21 days, Oliver Burkeman wrote recently about: How long does it really take to change a habit? In addition according to a recent study, a daily action like eating healthily or running for regularly took an average of 66 days to become as much of a habit as it would ever become.
Just how long it takes to change a habit has so many variables that it is difficult to say with any precision, we are after all human and there are 3 important things to remember about employees and managers:
What we do know is that for people to change, they need to understand and buy-in at an emotional level to the changes being imposed.
Back to fad-surfing – as a habit is is not productive, but does buy a few years for a leader before they are eventually “found out”.
Much better to have a vision, communicate it, stick with it (providing the evidence keeps saying its the right thing to do), repeat, repeat, repeat, and practice, practice, practice. It is consistency that always rules the day.
The only panacea for effective leadership is consistant hard work and a clear vision…
20 Comments | management | Tagged: 21 days, change, fad surfing, habit, innovation, leaders, leadership, magpie, Management, panacea, Risk, Shiny new things, Sizzle, SMART, Strategy, vision | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Over the past few months I have slowly been releasing an A to Z of leadership tips/ ideas/ thoughts. I have been asked a few time for that list to be published in one place. The origional source for the list is below, our role was to find the list, adapt it to the 100+ characters that twitter could handle.
A – Accessibility-find out what is really going on by getting out there to talk to everyone at every level
B – Brains-half of the brains of the world are female & brains have no colour. It’s about getting the very best person
C – Culture-culture is the way a company gets things done. If it is working, why change it?
D – Detail-never miss a thing. If you do, your customer won’t
E – Energy-leading is a 24 hour a day, seven day a week job. Get in shape
F – Failure-lose the blame culture. If you punish failure people will never have the courage to be creative
G – Goals-know what you want to achieve and how you are going toget there. Then tell everyone
H – Honesty-never lie and never bullsh*t. Not even to get yourself out of trouble. You will get rumbled
I – Instinct-trust your first instinct. You were probably right
J – Judgement-good judgement is based on good evidence. Invest your time in getting the whole picture
K – Kings-never forget, the customer is king. Without them, you do not have a business
L – Listening-clear communication means listening as well as talking. A good leader will listen more than they speak
M – Mission-make it count. A mission is a guiding set of principles which should stand the test of time and never change
N – News-tell it how it is, even if it is bad news. You will earn respect
O – Opportunities-opportunities never come along at just the right time, but when you see one, take it
P – Popularity-forget it. Leadership is not a popularity contest
Q – Questions-ask them all the time – feedback is vital
R – Recruitment-hire to your weaknesses – let someone else watch your blind side
S – Strategy-strategy is the easy bit. The tough part is execution
T – Team-no one can succeed on their own
U – Unity-to unite a team, everyone must share the same goals and values
V – Vision-champion your vision. Tell everyone who will listen, all day, every day
W – Winning-winning is addictive
X – eXtra-leading is not a 9-5 job. You have to go that extra mile every single day
Y – Yours Truly-the buck stops here. You will know when you look in the mirror whether you have done the right thing
Z – If you go to the zoo, always take something to feed the animals, It wasn’t the animals that put the signs up
I cannot claim that this list is my own – indeed it is based the work from: http://www.onleadership.co.uk/a-z-of-leadership/atoz they have some great material and great ideas.
If you have any alternatives add them here….
30 Comments | management | Tagged: A to Z, a-2-z, leadership, Lists | Permalink
Posted by Mike Morrison
Articles from our main site Training, Change and OD Consulting & OD
