Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Understanding why people behave as they do to improve change delivery, Enabling Change SIG, June 2016

634 views

Published on

Understanding why people behave as they do to improve change delivery
Enabling Change SIG
APM funded research project update
Thursday 9th June 2016

Published in: Business
  • I have always found it hard to meet the requirements of being a student. Ever since my years of high school, I really have no idea what professors are looking for to give good grades. After some google searching, I found this service ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ who helped me write my research paper. The final result was amazing, and I highly recommend ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ to anyone in the same mindset as me.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • The Recovery Program has made some amazing changes in my life, that I would not have dreamed possible. I have a new-found knowledge on bulimia and have learned so much about myself, the disease and how to take my life back. The support and wisdom from my fellow recoverees is priceless. I’d just feel so alone prior to joining, so opening up to the people in your same shoes and listening to their precious stories and advice has given me this immense strength to recover. ●●● http://ishbv.com/bulimiarec/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Understanding why people behave as they do to improve change delivery, Enabling Change SIG, June 2016

  1. 1. Understanding why people behave as they do – to improve change delivery Enabling Change SIG – June 2016 Rod Willis, Carole Osterweil & Parag Gogate APM funded research project update
  2. 2. Session agenda  Reflection time !  Introductions & acknowledgements  Research project update  Research findings/outputs (high level)  Case study 1  Case study 2  Q & A  Next steps & close
  3. 3. Introductions & Acknowledgements  Research Team – Rod Willis, Carole Osterweil & Parag Gogate  Acknowledgements – APM – Enabling Change SIG – Assentire, OMQ Consulting & Arcus – The Management Shift – Sponsoring organisations
  4. 4. Research Project Background  Volunteer research funded by APM and supported by Enabling Change SIG  Research Objectives – Providing a means of measurement and diagnosis for group dynamics – Enable Change, Programme and Project Managers to quickly explore and identify potential behavioural obstacles at the Team/Organisational level – Provide useful indicators for further exploration so necessary action can be taken to minimise impact and maximise productivity.
  5. 5. Research Context “A better understanding and management of group dynamics (understanding different perceptions) provides the greatest opportunity for improving change delivery”  Measuring different perspectives – View of the participant as part of a group during times of change – View of the participant when the group is part of the wider organisation
  6. 6. Research Timeline & Methodology  Timeline – April 2016 to March 2016  Research methodology – Phase 1 - Sponsor interviews including exploring mindsets – Phase 2 - Online survey – Quantitative & statistical data analysis
  7. 7. Research Project Update  Research Output (s) – Diagnostic Tool and a norm group table created from survey participants – Individual sponsor organisation reports – Research findings report (summary)  Research participants – Phase 1 – 15 organisations – Phase 2 - 9 organisations; 174 online survey participants – All responses are anonymous and confidential
  8. 8. Current status  Phase 1 and Phase 2 are now complete  Statistical data analysis has been carried out  Reviewed by APM and EC SIG committee  Diagnostic tool developed; norm table established  Launch – 9th June EC SIG AGM  Dissemination through various APM channels to follow
  9. 9. Phase 1 – Sponsor interviews & exploring mind-sets exercise
  10. 10. Online survey Intra Group Dynamic (Relationships) Inter Group Dynamic (Environment) The words are ONLY Labels Review the question for greater understanding
  11. 11. What is the culture of the group like? LEARNING DYNAMIC CONTROL DYNAMIC This work was inspired by C Argyris, D Schön, D Stone, E Deci, R Ryan, D Coghlan, E Schein, Robert Kegan & many more…
  12. 12. Online survey findings Inter Group Dynamic (Environment) IntraGroupDynamic(Relationships) R² = 0.48512 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 GroupDynamic Group Environment Group Dynamic v Group Environment Eight of the nine organisations had participants in all three clusters
  13. 13. R² = 0.61852 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 LearningDynamic Group Enviroment Learning Dynamic v Group Environment Learning Dynamic vs Group Environment  Clear positive relationship between the group environment and learning dynamic (all 9 organisations)  N.B – This not necessarily causal
  14. 14. R² = 0.17613 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 ControlDynamic Group Environment Control Dynamic v Group Environment Control Dynamic Vs Group Environment  Negative relationship between the group environment and the control dynamic ( 6 organisations )  N.B – This not necessarily causal
  15. 15. Case Study – Organisation A
  16. 16. Organisation A - Background
  17. 17. The Stress Cycle Source: OMQ 2015
  18. 18. The Notion of Flow Source: OMQ 2015
  19. 19. The Notion of Flow Source: OMQ 2015
  20. 20. Phase 2 – Online survey 26 questions were asked online (On a scale of 1 to 7 for the research) Source: OMQ & Innovation Audit
  21. 21. Internal Group Dynamics (survey findings) 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 C1. Tell C2. Closed C3. One_View C4. Manipulate C5. Individual C6. Misunderstand C7. Mistrust C8. Degraded_WLQ L1. Ask L2. Open L3. Many_Views L4. Collaborate L5. Collective L6. Understand L7. Trust L8. Enhanced_WLQ Group Dynamic Items T-Score Norm-Mean Below Norm Above Norm These factors Enhance Flow These factors Constrain Flow  Note the difference between blue (this group) and the red (the norm group)  Where is this greatest ?  Might drilling down help ? (cluster analysis to check for masking)
  22. 22. Internal Group Dynamics (survey findings) Cluster 1 8 people Cluster 2 14 people Cluster 3 12 people These factors Enhance Flow These factors Constrain Flow  Average T score for all 34 participants  Note items with the biggest difference between cluster scores  Clusters 2&3 represent 75% people and quite similar.  Cluster 1 = 25% (The two cultures may ‘conflict’ with each other if there is limited awareness of the group dynamics AND they need to work with each other. )
  23. 23. Feedback
  24. 24. Case Study – Arcus FM & Arcus Solutions
  25. 25. Arcus - Background  Two organisations participated in the survey (part of the same group) – Facilities management & services provider – JV with Sainsbury’s (single client); established 2009 – Arcus FM (560 employees) – Arcus Solutions (350 employees) – Operate as separate business units; majority of the support services are shared  Context of research – Contractual change; New service line (strategic capability) – Impacted both Arcus FM & Arcus Solutions Operation / Service delivery teams – Challenge – for teams to work together and deliver integrated service (first time in group’s history)
  26. 26. How is the research helping?  To understand how can we make these two distinct Operations team work together?  What is the respective readiness for change?  To explore gaps in perception of two different groups with distinct clusters within  Contrast & explore – what should the our future state be like?  Given a common language to have further discussions
  27. 27. Key messages - Learning Dynamic vs Group Environment contrast Arcus FM Arcus Solutions  Similarity in results around the Learning Dynamic for both businesses  How can we make it even better?  Different groupings to be explored with the teams
  28. 28. Key messages - Control Dynamic vs Group Environment contrast Arcus FM Arcus Solutions  Weak to no relationship between the Control Dynamic and the group environment (distributed workforce)  Very different perceived realities around the Control Dynamic for both businesses – should be considered for integrated working
  29. 29. How could this help with your change initiatives and projects ?
  30. 30. Next steps  Dissemination through various APM channels to follow – Webinar (EC SIG) – APM research findings report – Diagnostic tool and norm table to be made available via EC SIG microsite – Presentation at other branch/SIG events – White papers
  31. 31. References  Argyris, C., 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn.  Stone, D.N., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 2009. Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), p.75.Vancouve”r  Coghlan, D., 1993. A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(4), pp.10-14.  Schein, E.H., 2006. Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 356). John Wiley & Sons. Vancouver  Mintzberg, H., 2013. Simply managing: What managers do—and can do better. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.  Laloux, F., 2014. Reinventing Organisations. Nelson Parker: Brüssel.  Hlupic, V., 2014. The Management Shift is Achievable Now: A Call for Action. In The Management Shift (pp. 173-188). Palgrave Macmillan UK.  Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L., 2009. Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press. Vancouver Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), pp.75-91.
  32. 32. This presentation was delivered at an APM event To find out more about upcoming events please visit our website www.apm.org.uk/events

×