Harvard Yale Written Goals Study – fact or fiction?

3% of Harvard MBAs Make Ten Times as Much as the Other 97% Combined

..or… Why 3% of Yale MBAs Make Ten Times as Much as the Other 97% Combined

Or so the written goal study story goes regarding personal effectiveness and performance…

The power of written goals

One question was said to have been asked:

“Have you set clear, written goals for your future and made plans to accomplish them?”

Is your OD or change process based on fact or fiction? Often methods and strategies we use in business and our organizations are based on what we read. But can we trust everything we read?

For a long time I have heard of the 1953 Harvard study or the 1979 Yale study on the effects of written goals of graduates on the long term performance or people. many coaching, training and personal development providers quote one or other as the reason why we should each have written life and performance goals.

Many often quote it as being:

There was a study done at Harvard between 1979 and 1989. Graduates of the MBA program were asked “Have you set clear written goals for your future and made plans to accomplish them?” The results of that question were:

• • Only 3% had written goals and plans
  •  13% had goals but not in writing
  •  84% had no specific goals at all

10 years later Harvard interviewed the members of that class again and found:

1. The 13% who had goals but not in writing were earning on average twice as much as the 84% of those who had no goals at all

2. The 3% who had clear, written goals were earning on average 10 times as much as the other 97% of graduates all together. The only difference between the groups is the clarity of the goals they had for themselves

OR

In 1953 a team of researchers interviewed Yale’s graduating seniors, asking them whether they had written down the specific goals that they wanted to achieve in life.

Twenty years later the researchers tracked down the same cohort and found that the 3% of people who had specific goals all those years before had accumulated more personal wealth than the other 97% of their classmates combined.

Now while there is evidence that people completing Harvard based MBAs do out perform others this is not linked to written goals per se.

Really?

I was intrigued by this and 2 years ago started research onto the origins to find the original research data. 100s of hours and dozens of emails later the results were in – there was no such study at Harvard or Yale!

Indeed even Harvard themselves say:

It has been determined that no “goals study” of the Class of 1953 actually occurred. In recent years, we have received a number of requests for information on a reported study based on a survey administered to the Class of 1953 in their senior year and a follow-up study conducted ten years later. This study has been described as how one’s goals at graduation related to success and annual incomes achieved during the period.

The secretary of the Class of 1953, who had served in that capacity for many years, did not know of [the study], nor did any of the fellow class members he questioned. In addition, a number of Yale administrators were consulted and the records of various offices were examined in an effort to document the reported study. There was no relevant record, nor did anyone recall the purported study of the Class of 1953, or any other class.
(Source : Where can I find the Yale study from 1953 about goal-setting?)

It seems that there were two early “reporters” of these studies – Mark McCormack (What They Don’t Teach You in the Harvard Business School)  & Brian Tracy (Goals!). Other self development gurus that have helped to perpetuate the myth include Zig Ziglar, Tony Robbins and Tom Bay in ”Look within or Do without”

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/655551

If you run a Google or Bing search for “Yale written goals study” or “Harvard written goals study” you will find 1000s of references – none of them true! (much like the references for SMART objectives in an earlier piece).

Interestingly enough in 1996 the FAST company looked into this research and discovered that it was a myth back then! So why is it still being perpetuated 15 years later? Read the text here.

THIS RESEARCH DID NOT HAPPEN – This can only be described as a myth or urban legend amongst life coaches, consultants and personal development/ success gurus.

If any training or coaching provider quotes this “research or study” – then seriously question EVERYTHING else they say!!!

If you are into “self-help” books by any of the authors listed above, then ask yourself this question….

“If they publish untruths like this without any research can we really believe anything they say in their books?”

UPDATE 2011

Written goal study Dominican University of California 2007

This research was not done by teams at Yale or Harvard, but by Gail Matthews at Dominican University. You can read her research summary here

This study provides empirical evidence for the effectiveness of three coaching tools:

• accountability,
• commitment and
• writing down one’s goals.

This now means that there now is a study demonstrating that writing one’s goal enhances goal achievement. Although unlike the miss-quoted Yale or Harvard research this was not a longitudinal study

 UPDATE Sept 2011

It seems there is a new/ varient myth that this “research” is attached to : ” A research study by the Ford Foundation found that of the 10% of the population with specific goals…” etc  well as you can guess, none of these sites have any credable references either. The story goes on…

Learning and OD through Social Media

Can we Learn from Social Media?

One thing that amazes me is the lack of acceptance in the Learning and Development world of Social Media. At a conference workshop last year, out of 40 people only three used social media for learning.

Sure some organizations are setting up LinkedIn groups, Ning or other groups and forums for people to share ideas, but that is in many ways an extension of networking or action learning that already exists, just migrating to new platforms.

Learning through social media

While many of the social media and networking tools are great communication and connection vehicles, they should not be looked at as tools to replace formal learning strategies. But they can complement them.

Social learning is said to be open, informal, direct and easy. Open, because everybody or a preselected group of people can follow what you are doing. Informal, as it is about the “here and now”, a gestalt approach. It can be more structured if for example you search for specific content, or a reaction to something someone else has just written about that has inspired you to find out more. Direct, because people can connect to you, through the channel that the original communication was made – blog, Twitter, FaceBook etc. Easy, because new technologies such as smart-phones, are making it easier to stay connected to your social media tools and update them wherever you are and whenever you want. Social learning has the effect of demolish walls and building watchtowers to scan the horizon for new opportunities.

Leslie Madsen-Brooks in her blog says:

“Social media is an excellent medium for professional development because

• It allows for both synchronous and asynchronous participation.
• Participants are active learners—that is, they are actively engaged in the construction of knowledge, not just passive receivers of it.
• Social media usually can be captured, thus providing not only an archive of the learning experience, but content that can be repurposed for future symposia, seminars, or courses.
• In learning to use social media within the context of professional development, staff learn new ways of engaging with audiences for their institutions.
• Engagement with social media involves multiple learning modalities and intelligences—visual, aural, textual, and more.”

Twitter as an Informal learning Tool

Ever since I “found” twitter in November 2008 I have found it a powerful tool for finding out people thoughts, views and applications of models, theories and approaches to learning, leadership and many other topics around which we operate.

As a practical example, Dave Lester (@digitalhumanist) used Twitter to learn about mobile media and share what he learned:

If you follow the right people on Twitter, you can learn a lot on a diverse range of topics, not least it can stimulate you to research material you did not know existed previously.

To find useful and interesting Twitterfolk (or “Tweeps”), go to Twitter Search and enter a search term. Once you locate some interesting tweets, “follow” their authors and check to see whom these authors are following.

Kindle, iPad & other e-readers

With the ability to carry around a web connected reading device comes instant access to material whenever you want.

From a formal learning point of view, if each individual were issues with a Kindle or other e-ink reader, a company could ensure that each person had instant, anywhere access to policies, procedures and how-to’s. This approach would work equally well in retail, engineering or service sectors.  Once a week or so the individual would plug their reader into a network point and BANG! they have up to date manuals etc – and its environmentally friendly too.

For informal learning a company could make training texts and other learning tools available for those that wanted to improve themselves in an informal way.

One of the problems with the iPad is cost. With most e-readers being 89-199 each they are much more cost effective mass solutions.

The new tool on the street is the Google Android based Tablets, the power of the iPad (more actually) with the cost nearing the e-reader. Sure battery life is considerably less but its a move towards on-demand, interactive anywhere learning. With Android systems being open source, it also means that it is easy for a company to commission its own apps without breaking the learning and development budget!

Many of these platforms allow comments, notes etc from both a formal and informal approach to be shared with colleagues thus taking social media off-line and into areas e-learning has not been able to penetrate.

Summary

Social media opens the doors and empowers individuals to learn if they so choose. As organizations it will be difficult to drive it – but we can empower people and show them how to learn.

Informal learning for personal and career development is at last coming of age – thanks to social media and low cost portable technology.

If you have any stories of how you have used social media for your own personal development please add them below, I would love to hear about them.

Organizational Development & Organizational Effectiveness

OD Culture and needs assessment

What is Organizational Development?

Organization Development (OD) is a complex strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, culture and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges. Organizational Development methods are employed to improve Organizational Effectiveness (OE).

Performance improvement is a key reason for implementing organizational development tools and methods.

Or in simple terms a systematic approach which enables a company to implement improvements in a consistent way.

The key to an effective implementation to to know where you are before you start – that is what the RapidBI Business Improvement Review (BIR) is there to do.

What is Organization Development?

The are many definitions for organizational development or organizational effectiveness. To set the scene here are a few well know definitions:
From Wikipedia:
Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioural science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization’s effectiveness. (Cummings and Worley, “Organization Development and Change”, Sixth Edition, South-Western Publishing, 1997, p.2.)

Organization development, according to Richard Beckhard, is defined as:

1. A planned effort…
2. organization-wide…
3. managed from the top…
4. to increase organization effectiveness and health…
5. through planned interventions in the organization’s ‘processes’, using behavioural science knowledge.

According to Warren Bennis, organization development (OD) is a complex strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges.

Warner Burke emphasizes that OD is not just “anything done to better an organization”; it is a particular kind of change process designed to bring about a particular kind of end result. OD involves organizational reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis.

In other words is it is the planned change to a company to enable growth (or change) in an effective way
Relative to consulting. Human Resources, OD & Training means:

• Consulting with businesses or departments to improve effectiveness; specifically, assessing exact needs, developing and implementing strategic planned change efforts to link goals, skills and processes to the overall mission, vision and strategy
• The client and consultant (internal or external) work together to gather data (via structured methods), define issues and determine a suitable course of action. The business (or department) is assessed to create an understanding of the current situation and to identify opportunities for change that will meet business objectives
• OD differs from traditional consulting because client involvement is encouraged throughout the entire process. The ways in which people communicate and work together are addressed in addition to technical or procedural issues that need resolution
• Empowering individuals and teams by using valid and reliable research to create, manage and embrace efficient and effective change
• Developing managers and staff to create the desired culture across all levels of the organisation

 

Is OD/ OE the same as training?

No, the two fields compliment each other. OD/ OE involves analyzing 3 areas of an organization: its people, its processes, and its planning. Training on the other hand, typically only involves the people component. Training people will not solve every issue. Sometimes the issue requires a change in the process, and/or further strategic planning efforts.

Business Improvement Review (BIR)

Using the Business Improvement Review or any holistic OD diagnostic can help consultants (internal or external) make diagnoses that will help clients in their planning and decision making.
RapidBI Products and services help you and your managers (or clients) direct organizational change by identifying:

• The strengths and weaknesses (SWOT) of the organization as a whole
• The future needs of the organization
• The gap between the two and the required action plan
• The culture of the organization (current and required)

And

• The strengths and weaknesses in the current competencies of the key people in your organization,
• The future competencies needed by the organization, and
• The gap between the two.

Once you’ve identified specific gaps, you can design special programs to meet your needs. These needs must be identified in the context of the current organizational culture and the culture desired in the future. Failure to take account of culture is often the cause of failure in organizational change.

What makes a good Organizational Development (OD) diagnostic tool?

Many OD tools focus on the people and the roles they undertake. This is ok but limits the success of the project. With any successful OD project we must look not only at the people but at the systems and culture within they operate. This means understanding at some level:

• The mission/ goals of the organization
• The value of the organization
• The current management style
• Current and desired organizational culture

 

Diagnosing Organizational Development Needs:

The process that we advocate is based upon over eight years of field research.
1. Plan to plan
2. Decide on the need
3. Agree goals & brief
4. Gather senior mgt data
5. Gather staff data
6. Collate
7. Feedback set priorities
8. Action plan
9. Implement & review

This is the process which surrounds the Business Improvement Review (BIR) when implemented fully.

The main data collection process we use is the PRIMO-F model. This collects hard and soft data against:

People
Resources
Innovation & Ideas
Marketing
Operations
Finance

Our research has found that looking at people, their roles and skills without taking into account the culture, management style and objectives of the organization leads to solutions which are seldom fully implemented and rarely add value. Using the holistic approach of the PRIMO-F model has demonstrated added value and successful change time and time again.

One added advantage we have found when used by HR consultants (internal or external) is that because the process is strategically driven with out bias for change to people, structure or process (at the outset) that the HR functions enjoys the association with a strategic change process because it links to all parts of the organization at a high level.

Within the BIR we also use SWOT, Training Needs analyses and a range of other proven methods.

Keywords

Organizational development, organizational change, OD tools, Organizational Effectiveness, OE

Balance in the Nine Box Grid for Talent Management

Removing Line Manager Blocks to Encourage Talent Management

Its not all about people that are identified as being in the top right of a model. Talent is required at all levels and for all jobs. If all a business employed were high fliers then staff turnover would be unsustainable. True talent management is about harnessing and utilising what we have.

The nine box grid is a valuable and yet simple tool in the planning and management of people talent in any organisation. Its simplicity is its strength.

Key points to remember:

1) People identified in one area may advance or regress over time

2) There is no “right place” to be

3) All employees need to be included

4) The nine box grid is just a tool, not a decision making process

5) Managers need hands on involvement

History

The nine box grid or matrix, is believed to have originated within McKinsey to assess different business units and to prioritise the investment in individuals. This was developed for GE in the late 1960s and 1970s to enable them assess the potential of individuals in its business and prioritize their investment and overall strategy.

Application

The nine box grid is often treated as the process – it is not – it is the output from a process. One approach is to identify what staff would fit in which area:

The only area of danger on this grid is the bottom left – or marginal performers. Those with a low performance and a lot potential for improvement.

We need people in all the other positions, not just the top right.

Any effective talent management process should encompass all staff and not just the high flyers. For the process to add value to both the individuals and organisation the process needs to be transparent. The criteria for each “box” or performance assessment needs to be an integrated part of an appraisal process. Some of the most effective talent management processes may well be designed by HR or OD functions, but they are owned and managed by the line. Managers need to be rewarded for supporting and proposing promotions and transfer of people out of their responsibility – or the biggest barrier to talent management in any organisation is the manager that does not want to lose his/ her best employee/ performer to another part of the business. What gets measured gets done – and this is just as true for the identification of talent as it is anything else.

All managers in an organisation need to know their role in the development of people for the succession plan and future performance of the organisation – not just the KPIs that matter this week.

Traditionally talent Management schemes have been owned and driven by HR – for them to be truly effective in a sustainable way, the line needs to own the process – supported by HR/ OD.

*Note the talent management application graphic is NOT included in our ppt downloads

Other articles on this type of talent management methodology:

http://rapidbi.com/management/nine-box-grids-for-talent-management/

http://rapidbi.com/management/talent-management-and-nine-box-grids/

Useful Links

Recently I have noticed a number of trends on many professional forums. There appear to be increasing numbers of people in HRD roles or studying for HRD roles that lack some of the ‘basics’. To meet this need I have written a number of guides and introductory articles, their purpose is to act as a beginner 101. I hope you find them of value.

http://www.rapidbi.com/articles

Management Models – 100+ Management Models – a page full of graphical management models
The PESTLE Analysis Tool – The PESTLE analysis – a powerful tool for exploring the external environment of an organzation
SWOT analysis – The SWOT analysis – a powerful tool for exploring the strengths of an organzation
PRIMOF_- Business_Growth_Model – The PRIMO-F business growth model
Write SMART objectives – Description on how to write SMART objectives for individual and business performance
Critical Success Factors – What are Critical Success Factors and how to use them
Corporate Social Responsibility CSR – How does Corporate Social Responsibility impact smaller businesses

 

 

The pages below contain free articles on management, leadership and HR issues:

Strategic Organizational Development

OD professionals are the CEOs allies in creating a top performance culture for the organization.

Organizational Development professionals are specialists in Change Management and Culture Development. However many find themselves in positions that make it difficult to get a straight line of communication to the CEO. Mainly because of the Organizational structure and the fact that OD-Organization Development is located under HR. Ideally the OD Head would have a position on the same level as the HR Head according to Dr. William Rothwell from Pennstate University who is an authority in HR. However reality is that most OD professionals still work under the more traditional structure.

Some years ago I held an OD role that reported directly into the CEO – HR did not!! – so to some extent this is down to the CEO and their experience of what an OD professional can and cannot deliver in relation to their needs and vision for the organization.

OD as a discipline is getting is only recently starting to grow an a standalone profession. More so with the pangs of growth that many of the new organizations are now facing. Talent acquisition, retention, organizational culture and people development are now starting to hinge more on the OD professional more than the HR. Recognizing this aspect, many organizations are allocating independent structures for the OD function. However, in cases where the OD has to work under HR, whether he/she can connect to the CEO solely depends on what he/she is capable of taking to the table. If a OD professional can sparkle with out-of-the-box ideas which can directly contribute to the growth of organization, the CEO cannot turn a blind eye.

Back in the 60′s and 70′s OD focused on people, behaviours and their actions and interactions with each other, in those days the majority of organizations did not know how to look after or engage with their people –

Things have now changed, much is different

CEO’s are having their valuable time ever squeezed and as such will only be able to have people reporting directly in that can add directly and measurably to their primary objectives. They have to focus on the big picture or strategic matters.

Unfortunately it is not very often that OD practitioner can demonstrate primary change. If we want to be engaged at this level we need to re-evaluate what we do and what is classed as OD activity. For example, traditionally when undertaking diagnostic processes we seem to focus on people and behaviours, or on the culture, now we need to be more integrated and holistic. This means starting to look at factors which traditionally have not been the domain of OD practitioner. If we are to truly facilitate change then our diagnostic process need to map the PRIMO-F model – that is to cover:

• People,
• Resources,
• Innovation,
• Marketing,
• Operations and
• Finance elements,

For it is how these factors interact that provide the organization with either an advantage or disadvantage in the market place. When undertaking a SWOT analysis for your organization do you cover all of these elements appropriately? Sure we may not be in a position to solve any issues raised here but as OD facilitators our role is to identify any blocks in the organization, then help to facilitate a solution.

So if we really want to get noticed we need to really get strategic and start looking at interactions with people and systems in all elements of our respective organizations.

———————————————————————————-

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

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

Diagnosing Organizational Culture

Today I read a thread on Diagnosing Organizational Culture, where someone was asking for recommendations on tools to use to undertake this task.

If you are only looking for isolated culture tools then the following should be considered (in no particular order):

• Diagnosing Organizational culture – Harrison
• Denison Organizational Culture Survey – Denison
• Corporate Culture Questionnaire – SHL
• The Creatrix – Byrd (http://www.creatrix.com/ ) looks at the culture for innovation and effective leadership
• Organizational Dynamics – Kotter (book with diagnostic)
• Diagnosing & Changing Organizational Culture – Cameron, Quinn (book with diagnostic)
• and many many more….

Many instruments will claim to be ‘normed’ – be careful of this – we know the difficulties in ‘norming’ personality psychometrics – well imaging that complication multiplied ten fold per person employed… each person acts and interacts with another in a different way – I would love to see the data to be verified for this – the psychometric publishers would love to have such technology!

Context based Cultural Review

There are many approaches to looking at culture and for each firm their will be an appropriate tool based upon:

• Current culture (ironically)
• Goals of undertaking the survey
• Desired outputs

I have been part of a team looking at what makes an effective firm for over 10 years now and have used many, many instruments from around the world looking at organizational culture. To my mind they all have one fundamental flaw – they assume there is a right way to run a business.

While there may well be a preferred approach of empowerments, engagement etc, I have worked with many firms that use an autocratic style very effectively, and when changed often people feel less secure and over time those firms fail to perform to the level they once did.

Change the culture at your peril

Having worked with over 700 firms in the last 10+ years I have discovered that the best culture to have is the culture that best suits the owner/ CEO and their natural style, then it is about getting consistency across the organization.

To change the culture without the TOTAL commitment from the CEO (and the CEO having appropriate one-to-one support to change their own style first) is pure folly. Change of culture must be led from the top if it is to be sustained and add value to the organization.

It’s more than just culture change

In addition, looking at culture on its own is meaningless – the systems, structure and processes need to be congruent with the culture, and just looking at culture in isolation is folly for short term feel good but little long term added value.

Any diagnostic process as part of an organizational development intervention needs to be as holistic as practical to avoid duplication of effort at a slightly later stage (clients get diagnostic’ed out)

Going truly Holistic

Many OD practitioners talk about holistic reviews – but are they truly holistic? Do they look at the way Finance, Marketing and Operations are run in the organization? are these put in the context of the culture and the stated/ desired goals of stakeholders?

The BIR (Business Improvement Review) not only looks at culture, style and values but puts it in the context of operations and the goals of the organization. It does not assume there is a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ to run a firm, nor does it assume a single management model. The BIR provides the coach or consultant to start a meaningful discussion based upon a common understanding. This creates ownership in the key decision makers and as a result has a high proportion of participants take meaningful action post diagnostic. They own the results and the reason for change.

If you would like more information on the BIR please visit www.rapidbi.com/bir or email me for further details.

———————————————————————————-

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

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

Coaching – seven sport and organisational analogies

1. Emphasis on excellence
2. Putting high value on persistence
3. Stressing self-reliance
4. Embracing competition
5. Encouraging comradeship
6. Massive motivation to win – to be the best
7. Huge satisfaction for winners

Source: David Megginson

Why Organisational Development often fails to deliver

Organisational Development (OD) is the name or label given to many HR and training related strategies, but it is more than that.

Bennis in his early work “Organizational Development: nature, origins & prospects” defines OD as:

“a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets and challenges”

This is just as true today as it was in 1969!

Research carried out within the Business Link organisation in the late 1990s and Warwick university looked at SME (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) (50-500 employees as an autonomous business unit or legal entity) with the view of identifying why management development strategies did not work.  In summary the conclusions were:

1. Activity not linked to organisational objectives
2. No overall strategy for corporate development
3. Corporate culture not taken into account
4. Purchasers not clear about what they are buying
5. Suppliers finding solutions to problems they can solve
6. Lack of evaluation
7. Time pressures on managers
8. Change process not managed
9. Lack of (appropriate) ownership

These factors were found to be true for: training, organisational development, change and business support and improvement activity.

Starting out on the right foot

Some time ago I undertook a survey called “Developing the Developers” and one of the significant findings of this was the fact that the missing element in the majority of interventions was that of appropriate diagnosis. This is also true in organisational development at a holistic level. For any OD strategy to be effective we need to have a base of understanding of “where are we now”, we need to undertake a review of our business that can act as a benchmark measure. This will also enable evaluation of policy and strategy to be more effective. In other words before undertaking any OD activity we need to undertake some form of quantitative diagnostic process. This will then act as a reference point for all future development interventions and aid the evaluation of success (ROI etc).

Get the diagnostic process right and you have a great chance of success, miss it out or get it wrong and the chances of success are little to none.  As the saying goes “fail to plan… plan to fail” planning in an OD context is diagnosis AND prioritisation.

The Business Improvement Review was designed to provide a holistic overview of an organisation with the view of undertaking OD or business improvement activity.

Innovation – Individual or team effort – “Collective Leadership”

Today I read an interesting blog article on Innovation which starts with:

“To generate creative business ideas, breakthrough innovators must be fiercely tested and wisely deployed (…) Truly innovative people are rare. Perhaps, 5% or 10% of the high potential managers within a company at any given time have the skills and attributes to become innovators.”Read Jeffrey Cohn, Jon Katzenbach, and Gus Vlack’s paper, “Finding and Grooming Breakthrough Innovators,” on HBR.” 

The author of the piece José de Francisco López goes on to say:

“Interestingly enough the above article also states that most companies develop leaders who are better at replicating than innovating, thus struggling to create new opportunities and to get the business ahead of the curve: “rising stars realize that to be promoted, they need to mirror incumbent leaders (…) even when stellar external talent comes in it is frequently drawn into the same anti-innovation culture that has been squelching internal talent.”The article goes on to portray an “innovator’s profile” failing to realize that innovators’ personalities and behaviours can be as diverse as the sources of innovation. In any case, it is true that most creative people wrestle with tensions when challenging the status quo. Innovating means going back and forth between working in isolation and working with others to get things done.”

Why do so many approaches to innovation and innovation in leadership focus on the skills, knowledge and behaviour of one individual. We have tried management models of hierarchy, leadership, transformational leadership etc.. now is the time for leaders to maximise their performance by team working, where that team may be 2 or 22 people. It is about harnessing strengths in the “collective”, and this means a new form of leadership – “Collective leadership” where the individual who is the leaders is not there for them-self, but for the success of the community (what ever that means).

For Collective leaders to be effective we need executive innovation to be a part of the organisations culture.

Byrd and Brown in their book “The Innovation Equation” identify eight orientations of behaviour towards innovation, in the model (The Creatrix) rather than just take a traditional approach of looking at the profile of the individual, it is the team and organizational culture that is the difference that makes the difference.

The language of innovation is also important – everyone understanding what innovation means to each individual in their role, the Creatrix model helps to provide so of that language. For example, in this models an “innovator” is a person who harnesses creativity and takes action and risk to see the outcome through. This is a rare combination. What the model also allows for is for the individual with high drive for achievement and action to work with a creative to implement the idea, thus a team approach is born. the model allows for an unlimited mix of strengths to be harnessed to deliver innovation at all leveus from executives through to customer facing people. This approach take innovation away from process and puts it in behavioural terms, terms that are tangible and can be developed in OD change programmes easily.

Change management – approach and models

Introduction to Change, change management and change models
For any organizational development (OD) intervention to be effective, change needs to be lead or at the very least managed.

Many organizations focus on the project management aspects of change. While this is an important factor – it is not the critical factor. People are. Having said that, it is about balancing the development or change of both at the same time – see our business growth model.

Often when undertaking change processes in organizations we focus on the process, the project management.  Usually when change fails, it fails because we have not taken into account the impact change has on the individuals concerned from a psychological perspective.

When you are researching or talking to others about change remember the three important leadership rules:

Read more> Change Management

Force Field Analysis

The Force Field analysis is a graphical tool for supporting decision making. It can be used equally by individuals or teams.

Kurt Lewin in 1943 developed the concept based in the physical sciences. He originally proposed it as a tool to understand problem based situations in social science and to effect planned change.

He described a problem situation as one where the difference between the way things are and the way they are desired to be. The principle of force field analysis is that in any situation it the way it is  at any given point because of counterbalancing forces are keeping it that way.

Force does not infer any physical pressure but to the broad range of influences at the time – be they political, personal etc. One way to understand the situation is to analyse the environment or ‘forces’ in it to explore what is supporting the change or resisting the change.  Therefore to effect change we much change the way these forces act on the organization at a given point in time.

Read More> force field analysis

Not what… why

When situations are difficult it is easy to remain task focused (what), but does this help us maintain a future resistant approach?

Schein in “organizational Culture and leadership”  says “what happens in organizations is fairly easy to observe, but in the effort to understand why such things happen, culture as a concept comes into its own”

If leadership is the key to the future success of our organisation then culture is the lock. In a world where we are very short term-ist (just look at the financial markets) we think that we understand the ‘what’ i.e. what needs to be done, but this will again only have a short term impact. The UK gov has seen this first hand with the bailout of the finance sector. We need to “get under the surface” and understand why and change the behaviours.

This is the important of the longer term and longer vision.

In this article there is a challenge to the paralysis by analysis that can catch people who are unaware:

ASK WHAT, NOT WHY

Reckoning with your mind in order to free up your capacity for wisdom is the ongoing battle of life. For some, the battle is constant; others are not as affected. Regardless of which category you fall into, this chapter will give you the first tool for accessing the wisdom that can change your life. It’s a tool you use every day: the ordinary, common question.

One of the most common questions we ask is “Why?” “Why” is the language of seeking to understand. When we were young children, we used this question to figure out how the world works: “Why is the sky blue?,” “Why did Sparky run away?” As we get older, we still use “why” to bring our circumstances into alignment with our ability to understand our world.

Unfortunately, “why” eventually loses its power to move us forward; instead, we get “stuck” by obsessing over questions like “Why did that happen?,” “Why am I this way?,” and “Why aren’t I better-thinner-smarter?” 

 Without Why we would not progress, we would not innovate, we would not learn – copy by rote yes.. learn.. no. Anyone that has had children know very well those years where almost every question was “why” – why is a wonderful learning based question – it gets knocked out of most children by the age of 7 – a shame.

In Organisational Development the why is not just an important tools – it is the ONLY real tool. Without understanding why making any change is dangerous. In her book “the innovation equation” Byrd outlines eight orientations of innovative behaviour, one of those is the “modifier” who makes incremental changes without understanding the culture or context. this can be a dangerous activity if unchecked.

WE need to ensure that before we undertake any organisational development activity that we understand the “why”… the culture… or context in which the decision needs to be made.

many managers and leaders can be successful in one organisation but not in another  this is all down to the extent to which they can change the culture or context to match their strengths.

Over the years i have worked with many business owners and entrepreneurs that wanted to change the culture of their business, but did not realise that they were the culture – when the culture was changed (at their request) from the bottom up, often they were very uncomfortable and did not adjust – one of three things happen – they revert to the old culture or they leave or the company goes bust.

We all need to ask Why a Little more often and learn to understand the culture before proposing changes – at any level in organisations.

Diagnostics and strategy maps

For those of us involved in the cloak and dagger world of Organisational Development we use a wide range of organisational diagnostic tools  however when it comes to planning and monitoring progress we often do things a little freestyle. While this may feel creative and valuable it may well be one of the contributing factors to change programmes not being as successful as we may expect.

This free tool from our colleagues down-under strategymap is a powerful project management tool specifically looking at the Balanced business Scorecard and strategy maps. It provides a simple methodology of planning and engaging people freom within organisations to the implementation and monitoring process. Worth a look.

CSI in organizations – a valid approach?

We are in the beginnings of massive change for both the way we employ people and the way organizations are financed and run. To prepare us for the ‘new world’ we need to look at things from a different perspective.

At first glance Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) in organizations and organizational development may look a little out of place, but when things go wrong it can help the rest of the OD world to understand why the ‘victim’ died, who was involved and could anyone have prevented it.

Conventional OD
In the normal course of events we use metaphors of machines or organics to represent change and growth. Stories like the life cycle of the butterfly, human development – infancy, childhood, teens, young adults etc. are prolific, indeed we have many models to reflect this. But most of them seem to focus on growth, not the decline. What are we as OD and change agents supposed to do in times of decline? Much like the state of the business word, with the recent collapse of several key (and perceived to be strong) UK and US financial institutions suggests that we need to move away from models of growth to that of survival (at least in the short term) for some organizations. Which organizations… well read on to see…



A new model
Let’s look at adult cycles of organic change and see what we can learn:

The illness part in organizations is where things start to go wrong. Where there is dis-ease with people, process or product. There are not many of us that run to the doctor or specialist at the slightest little sign, we prefer to ‘ride it out’ hoping for it to ‘get better on its own’. well in organizations that just does not happen. dis-ease does not go away unless people leave and take it with them – very rare!

As OD and change professionals we regularly undertake organizational diagnostic reviews or staff surveys – or preferably both. The question is what happens when something is identified as ‘not being well’? What do we do about it? Who do we tell? Will senior people in the organization react appropriately to our concerns? Or will they ‘deny’ there is a problem? Those that do not undertake regular health checks (diagnostics and surveys) take note – it is easier to deal with a problem when it is identified earlier than later.

If the situation is denied or not taken seriously then usually a second stage diagnostic opportunity is missed (going to the specialist in a hospital) and the situation gradually worsens until it is terminal or critical in nature.

Then radical action is required, and radical action is always fighting against the odds. The patient goes into Intensive care (of change teams or liquidators) and becomes unconscious. Soon the organism stops to breathe. Specialist fight, but again the numbers are stacked against survival. The longer it goes on the less opportunity of survival. As things deteriorate the body is put on to a ventilator, providing the patient with essentials (oxygen and food) while key systems have a chance to repair themselves – Often in such cases the patient is beyond ‘self repair’ and soon the brain stem dies – but for a while the rest of the organism keeps on ‘business as usual’ and when the time comes the ‘business as usual’ elements suddenly stops as certain resources are no longer available. For some time parts of the organism carry on working at an individual cell level. Until eventually all activity stops. It is only at this point the CSI team is introduced to the situation.

How often do we notice our organisations are about to be put on the ventilator? How often have we worked inside an organisation when someone has already turned off the ventilator?

After careful investigation the lead CSI reports that the cause was often one of two main factors:

1. Lack of timely action
2. Long term poisoning or systems failure due to damage (poor information)

Worse – the metaphor of a machine
If we think that organic metaphors are bad news lets look at the common metaphor of machinery, supply chains, systems etc.

Even the most expensive motor vehicle needs love care and the occasional service. More than that, on occasions it needs its oil replacing and on occasion new parts as they wear out. But even the most expensive motor vehicle has a finite life. There comes a point when much of what was there has been replaced (much like many of the organizations we work for), and then the stage beyond that when the vehicle, no matter how much it is loved, it is just beyond economical repair. And so it goes off to the scrap heap (sorry recycling centre!). How often have you had ‘just one more MOT’ on the car that should have been written off a year ago? Are you in a job that ceased being cost effective some time ago?

Organizations are like this too – for some their time has come. Lets just make sure that when an organization ‘dies’ it dies of natural causes and not a premature death that could have been avoided by good management and effective organizational development.

Whatever the metaphor, we as OD and change specialists need to be sensitive to the environment we work in, keep up with the health checks or preventative maintenance, notify other teams when we sense things are not quite the way they should be, and above all we need to be brave and take appropriate action as early as we dare.

———————————————————————————-

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

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement