This white paper describes an integral approach to thinking about holistic organizational change that Bud Phillips and I worked on for some years. It draws on our own work in organizational transformation, both individually and together (at Capital One), while also integrating the work of Ken Wilber, Robert Kegan, Otto Laske, Chris Argyris and Clayton Christiansen.
This paper is based on notes created during preparation for a mini-workshop given at Agile2009 and for a 1-day workshop, hosted by the Boston Agile Bazaar, February 2010.
• Matrix structures combine the benefits of traditional functional & product / service based structures. In a matrix reporting channels form a grid, and employees typically report to both a functional leader as well as a product or service based leader.
• Prior to adoption, an organization should understand the advantages and challenges associated with the matrix structure, as well as how such structure would address the specific needs of the current and future business. Matrix structures have several advantages over conventional one, such as flexible allocation of resources, increase information flow & increase employee autonomy. However, in addition to being extremely difficult to implement and sustain, matrix structures can incur greater overhead costs and increase internal competition for limited resources.
• If an organization decides to adopt a matrix , then it should be aware that, to succeed, the transition will require significant investment of both time and effort. Simply adopting a matrix structure is no guarantee for success, and such fundamental changes to an organization are not made swiftly. Organizations should acknowledge that changing cultural attitudes and norms, increasing levels of emotional intelligence and awareness, and developing effective training for employees and leaders are all critical components in maximising a matrix structure’s potential success.
• Organizations also should give thought to how they will navigate the unique challenges associated with successfully adopting a matrix structure, such as the increased potential for misaligned goals, unclear roles, responsibilities , ambiguous authority, the lack of matrix guardianship and silo- focused employees.
Behavioral School Of Management ThoughtsAl amin Rakib
Behavioral School Of Management Thoughts
1. Contributors of this Management school
2. Hawthorne Studies
3. Concept of Mary Parker Folleett
4. Abraham Maslow - Need Hierarchy Theory
5. Douglas McGregor - Theory X Theory Y
6. Frederick Herzberg - Two Factor Theory
7. McClelland - Theory of Needs
8. Equity Theory
9. Expectancy Theory
10. Goal Setting Theory
11. ERG Theory
Behavioral Approach to Leadership
Contemporary Approach in Behavioral School
Organizational Behavior
Group Dynamics
• Matrix structures combine the benefits of traditional functional & product / service based structures. In a matrix reporting channels form a grid, and employees typically report to both a functional leader as well as a product or service based leader.
• Prior to adoption, an organization should understand the advantages and challenges associated with the matrix structure, as well as how such structure would address the specific needs of the current and future business. Matrix structures have several advantages over conventional one, such as flexible allocation of resources, increase information flow & increase employee autonomy. However, in addition to being extremely difficult to implement and sustain, matrix structures can incur greater overhead costs and increase internal competition for limited resources.
• If an organization decides to adopt a matrix , then it should be aware that, to succeed, the transition will require significant investment of both time and effort. Simply adopting a matrix structure is no guarantee for success, and such fundamental changes to an organization are not made swiftly. Organizations should acknowledge that changing cultural attitudes and norms, increasing levels of emotional intelligence and awareness, and developing effective training for employees and leaders are all critical components in maximising a matrix structure’s potential success.
• Organizations also should give thought to how they will navigate the unique challenges associated with successfully adopting a matrix structure, such as the increased potential for misaligned goals, unclear roles, responsibilities , ambiguous authority, the lack of matrix guardianship and silo- focused employees.
Behavioral School Of Management ThoughtsAl amin Rakib
Behavioral School Of Management Thoughts
1. Contributors of this Management school
2. Hawthorne Studies
3. Concept of Mary Parker Folleett
4. Abraham Maslow - Need Hierarchy Theory
5. Douglas McGregor - Theory X Theory Y
6. Frederick Herzberg - Two Factor Theory
7. McClelland - Theory of Needs
8. Equity Theory
9. Expectancy Theory
10. Goal Setting Theory
11. ERG Theory
Behavioral Approach to Leadership
Contemporary Approach in Behavioral School
Organizational Behavior
Group Dynamics
Dear students get fully solved assignments
Send your semester & Specialization name to our mail id :
help.mbaassignments@gmail.com
or
call us at : 08263069601
"I'm the boss!"
It's a common mistake to think management is defined by formal authority—the ability that comes with a title to impose your will on others. In fact, formal authority is a useful but limited tool.
People Want More Than a Formal, Authority-Based Relationship with the Boss
Many managers—especially those who were achievement-driven stars as individual performers—don't even think about relationships. They're so task oriented that they put the work to be done and their authority as boss at the heart of what they do and assume they can ignore the human aspects of working with others.
The problem is that most people don't want your authority to be the be-all and end-all of the relationship. They want a personal, human connection, an emotional link. They want you to care about them as individuals. They want you to encourage their growth and development. Research tells us this kind of human relationship with the boss is a key factor determining an employee's level of engagement with the work.
We know of a small-company owner, a warm, decent woman, so pressed for time she consciously decided to avoid small talk at the office. She never opened up to people about herself or asked about their lives and interests. She didn't, that is, until her people rose up and expressed, through an intermediary, that they hated how she treated them. They wanted a real human connection with her, even if she was "the boss."
In the year 2002, Warren Buffett made an admission that he had not been as vigilant as he should have been in his role as Director of the various subsidiaries of his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway. In a letter to the shareholders he wrote “ Too often I was silent when management made proposals that I judged to be counter to the interest of the shareholders. In those cases, collegiality trumped independence and a certain social atmosphere presides in boardrooms where it becomes impolitic to challenge the Chief Executive.
Kevin Sharer, Chairman of Amgen, the US biotech company, portrayed a very different relationship between board and chief executive. “ Working with the board is vital, complex, and beyond your prior experience. It is among the most complex human relationships, especially if you are the chairman, when you are their boss, and they are your boss. Get the relationship right or it will hurt you.
These two very different experiences open a new book, Boards that Lead- When to take charge, When to Partner and When to stay out of the way. The central premise of the books is a plea. “ Governing boards should take more active leadership of the enterprises, not just monitor its management?
The growing complexity of markets and strategy, the authors say, is one of the biggest challenges for board members. It also means that they cannot afford to sit back and rubber stamp executive’s plans.
Boards often fail to do their job, they point out, for example failing to do their due diligence. They cite the example of Yahoo’s Chief Executive Scott Thompson. After a few months in the post, it was discovered that he had listed a degree in both accounting and computer science, but had actually earned only the first.
A good book to read move from Delivering to Leading.
Happy Reading
Need for Achievement Motivation Theory by David McClelland. It includes Need for Power, Achievement and Affiliation.Also includes How can the future HR Managers can apply the Need Achievement Theory? Even 2 case studies are included.
Is your company’s human resources operation a true “business partner” that makes a major contribution to your bottom line? Or does it merely fulfil the daily tasks of hiring, firing and paying your employees? If the latter, don’t worry – that can change. So say the human resources experts who founded the RBL Group and the RBL Institute, a consultancy and an educational organization dedicated to helping HR leaders attain new levels of professionalism. Using the institute’s tools and tactics, you can “transform” your human resources department into a valued, knowledgeable and contributing member of your corporate team. While you don’t have to be a human resources professional to benefit from this book, its HR-speak presents a pretty dense thicket that might daunt a novice.
A CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF LEADERSHIP | peoplesculptors.compeoplesculptors
The contemporary leaders have to be mindful of two big changes in the world that we live in and need to build them into their repertoire of skills. The first is to do with the changing dimensions and profile of the workforce with the emergence of millennials – the single largest block of people in our work force. Second is the complexity, uncertainty and volatility of the external environment in which we live. This is aptly coined in the acronym VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). For More Info:- http://www.peoplesculptors.com/blog/a-contemporary-view-of-leadership/
Performance Management and AppraisalMEDICAL CENTERThis healt.docxkarlhennesey
Performance Management and Appraisal
MEDICAL CENTER
This healthcare organization provides a wide array of services including inpatient services, transitional care services, and outpatient treatment and testing.
A few years ago, the facility changed its performance appraisal methodology. It shifted from a subjective performance appraisal system to a more objective rating system that focused on the actions and behaviors of the employee. This shift can be considered as a good move because the use of behavior-based scales tends to overcome evaluation errors that plague more subjective evaluations. Employee evaluations in this organization were performed once a year.
The performance appraisal system was instituted in this healthcare organization as a four-step process:
Step 1: The employee performs a self-appraisal first by completing an appraisal sheet and then submitting it to his or her supervisor. Employees generally welcome use of self-appraisal, and it tends to decrease defensiveness about the process.
Step 2: The supervisor then responds to the same questions the employee had previously answered based on his or her perceptions and observations of the employee’s performance.
Step 3: Finally, the supervisor and employee meet and discuss the ratings on the evaluation.
Step 4: The results of the evaluation are intended to then be used as a guiding tool to determine the annual raise of the employee.
The questions in the performance evaluation questionnaire were divided into two sections. The first section was based on the overall organizational standards that had been set for the entire hospital. Areas addressed in this section include professionalism, efficiency, and quality of work, respect, and service. Every employee, full-time and part-time, has to complete this section of the performance appraisal. The second section of the appraisal consisted of various competencies for each individual position. These competencies were specific to the tasks required to fulfill the duties of the individual in their respective positions. The competencies, varying greatly from position to position, were based strictly on duties required for that position. This is important, as having similarly situated employees evaluated on like criteria improves the consistency of the appraisal process.
In this healthcare organization, both the employee and the supervisor were instructed on the evaluation instrument to rate the employee on each of the areas on the following scale:
0 = Not Applicable
1 = Does Not Meet Expectations
2 = Meets Expectations
3 = Exceeds Expectations
This system was implemented to improve performance appraisals and make them more objective. The use of the same evaluation form throughout the organization improved the consistency in the evaluation process.
The healthcare organization also used some guidelines regarding what should be done if an employee obtained a certain score. Here is a brief description of the organization’s policies. If ...
Dear students get fully solved assignments
Send your semester & Specialization name to our mail id :
help.mbaassignments@gmail.com
or
call us at : 08263069601
"I'm the boss!"
It's a common mistake to think management is defined by formal authority—the ability that comes with a title to impose your will on others. In fact, formal authority is a useful but limited tool.
People Want More Than a Formal, Authority-Based Relationship with the Boss
Many managers—especially those who were achievement-driven stars as individual performers—don't even think about relationships. They're so task oriented that they put the work to be done and their authority as boss at the heart of what they do and assume they can ignore the human aspects of working with others.
The problem is that most people don't want your authority to be the be-all and end-all of the relationship. They want a personal, human connection, an emotional link. They want you to care about them as individuals. They want you to encourage their growth and development. Research tells us this kind of human relationship with the boss is a key factor determining an employee's level of engagement with the work.
We know of a small-company owner, a warm, decent woman, so pressed for time she consciously decided to avoid small talk at the office. She never opened up to people about herself or asked about their lives and interests. She didn't, that is, until her people rose up and expressed, through an intermediary, that they hated how she treated them. They wanted a real human connection with her, even if she was "the boss."
In the year 2002, Warren Buffett made an admission that he had not been as vigilant as he should have been in his role as Director of the various subsidiaries of his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway. In a letter to the shareholders he wrote “ Too often I was silent when management made proposals that I judged to be counter to the interest of the shareholders. In those cases, collegiality trumped independence and a certain social atmosphere presides in boardrooms where it becomes impolitic to challenge the Chief Executive.
Kevin Sharer, Chairman of Amgen, the US biotech company, portrayed a very different relationship between board and chief executive. “ Working with the board is vital, complex, and beyond your prior experience. It is among the most complex human relationships, especially if you are the chairman, when you are their boss, and they are your boss. Get the relationship right or it will hurt you.
These two very different experiences open a new book, Boards that Lead- When to take charge, When to Partner and When to stay out of the way. The central premise of the books is a plea. “ Governing boards should take more active leadership of the enterprises, not just monitor its management?
The growing complexity of markets and strategy, the authors say, is one of the biggest challenges for board members. It also means that they cannot afford to sit back and rubber stamp executive’s plans.
Boards often fail to do their job, they point out, for example failing to do their due diligence. They cite the example of Yahoo’s Chief Executive Scott Thompson. After a few months in the post, it was discovered that he had listed a degree in both accounting and computer science, but had actually earned only the first.
A good book to read move from Delivering to Leading.
Happy Reading
Need for Achievement Motivation Theory by David McClelland. It includes Need for Power, Achievement and Affiliation.Also includes How can the future HR Managers can apply the Need Achievement Theory? Even 2 case studies are included.
Is your company’s human resources operation a true “business partner” that makes a major contribution to your bottom line? Or does it merely fulfil the daily tasks of hiring, firing and paying your employees? If the latter, don’t worry – that can change. So say the human resources experts who founded the RBL Group and the RBL Institute, a consultancy and an educational organization dedicated to helping HR leaders attain new levels of professionalism. Using the institute’s tools and tactics, you can “transform” your human resources department into a valued, knowledgeable and contributing member of your corporate team. While you don’t have to be a human resources professional to benefit from this book, its HR-speak presents a pretty dense thicket that might daunt a novice.
A CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF LEADERSHIP | peoplesculptors.compeoplesculptors
The contemporary leaders have to be mindful of two big changes in the world that we live in and need to build them into their repertoire of skills. The first is to do with the changing dimensions and profile of the workforce with the emergence of millennials – the single largest block of people in our work force. Second is the complexity, uncertainty and volatility of the external environment in which we live. This is aptly coined in the acronym VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). For More Info:- http://www.peoplesculptors.com/blog/a-contemporary-view-of-leadership/
Performance Management and AppraisalMEDICAL CENTERThis healt.docxkarlhennesey
Performance Management and Appraisal
MEDICAL CENTER
This healthcare organization provides a wide array of services including inpatient services, transitional care services, and outpatient treatment and testing.
A few years ago, the facility changed its performance appraisal methodology. It shifted from a subjective performance appraisal system to a more objective rating system that focused on the actions and behaviors of the employee. This shift can be considered as a good move because the use of behavior-based scales tends to overcome evaluation errors that plague more subjective evaluations. Employee evaluations in this organization were performed once a year.
The performance appraisal system was instituted in this healthcare organization as a four-step process:
Step 1: The employee performs a self-appraisal first by completing an appraisal sheet and then submitting it to his or her supervisor. Employees generally welcome use of self-appraisal, and it tends to decrease defensiveness about the process.
Step 2: The supervisor then responds to the same questions the employee had previously answered based on his or her perceptions and observations of the employee’s performance.
Step 3: Finally, the supervisor and employee meet and discuss the ratings on the evaluation.
Step 4: The results of the evaluation are intended to then be used as a guiding tool to determine the annual raise of the employee.
The questions in the performance evaluation questionnaire were divided into two sections. The first section was based on the overall organizational standards that had been set for the entire hospital. Areas addressed in this section include professionalism, efficiency, and quality of work, respect, and service. Every employee, full-time and part-time, has to complete this section of the performance appraisal. The second section of the appraisal consisted of various competencies for each individual position. These competencies were specific to the tasks required to fulfill the duties of the individual in their respective positions. The competencies, varying greatly from position to position, were based strictly on duties required for that position. This is important, as having similarly situated employees evaluated on like criteria improves the consistency of the appraisal process.
In this healthcare organization, both the employee and the supervisor were instructed on the evaluation instrument to rate the employee on each of the areas on the following scale:
0 = Not Applicable
1 = Does Not Meet Expectations
2 = Meets Expectations
3 = Exceeds Expectations
This system was implemented to improve performance appraisals and make them more objective. The use of the same evaluation form throughout the organization improved the consistency in the evaluation process.
The healthcare organization also used some guidelines regarding what should be done if an employee obtained a certain score. Here is a brief description of the organization’s policies. If ...
Give your employees freedom within a frameworkAlex Clapson
Imagine starting your first day of work at a new company. During your on boarding, someone called the Chief Culture Officer (CCO), tells you the usual things such as: employees live our company values and purpose; the company wants people to take risks and be responsible for the outcomes; it’s okay to fail, just learn from the mistake; blah, blah, blah. At the end of thirty minutes, with semi-glazed over eyes, you stand up to leave the meeting room. Just as you are about to go out the door, the CCO stops you and says, “Oh, I also forgot to mention that we have no dress code or vacation policy. Just wear clothes and take the time you need to re-energize.”
Understanding emotions is not simple, but once you grasp the basics, you can actually determine what to do with them and identify opportunities to connect with your audience in meaningful ways.
Essay about Organizational Structures
Different Types Of Individual Behavior
Essay about Organizational Structure
Henry Mintzberg s Organizational Archetypes
Essay about Organizational Culture
The Five Types of Organizational Structure
Levels Of Management Essay
Three Types Of Isomorphism In Business
Assignment : Types Of Business Organization
Organizational Structure Essay
Organizational Structure
Week 7 Culture andor Climate in the Workplace—Do They Matter.docxhelzerpatrina
Week 7: Culture and/or Climate in the Workplace—Do They Matter?
Using this week’s lesson and resources as a start, locate three research studies that support the premise that better managers are those who pursue an understanding of the culture and/or climate of their organization. Why does it matter to gain insight about the culture and/or climate in the workplace? Use online, peer-reviewed journal research (case study research is preferred) to inform your writing. Summarize the takeaways from the articles that can support greater skill in managing people.
MGMT600 | LESSON 7 (this is this weeks lesson)
BUSINESS MODELS DEALING WITH ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RELATING TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to module week 7. This week we will research and explore the subject of corporate culture. The culture of an organization is similar to the personality of an individual as we explored in module week 6. A healthy corporate culture is one build on trust, fairness, and high ethical standards. An unhealthy corporate culture leads to a multitude of problems. Let’s get started.
Assessing Corporate Culture
Few topics in the field of compliance and ethics have generated more interest, and provoked more questions and concerns, than the topic of corporate culture—and rightly so. Compliance and ethics officers have every reason to be concerned about the new emphasis on culture.
To many, the term itself is like air: It’s there, it’s vitally important, but it’s hard to describe and harder still to do much about. While it is true that corporate culture has long been recognized as having a critical impact on the effectiveness of compliance—the maxim that bad culture trumps compliance is, for example, well known—until recently few were held accountable for developing and maintaining an ethical corporate culture. That is beginning to change.
But do compliance and ethics officers have the clout, resources or allies to do what must be done? What exactly are they supposed to do? What is the objective? What specific actions are required?
In this article, we will examine specific steps that compliance and ethics officers can take to assess and improve their corporate culture. In Part I, we present suggestions for the initial phase of assessment: creating a process to identify your current corporate culture. In Part II, published in a subsequent issue, we provide a step-by-step process for evaluating the impact your culture has on the effectiveness of your compliance and ethics initiatives.
Holding Companies and Individuals Accountable
Paul Fiorelli, in a recent article in the Wake Forest Law Review (Fall 2004) summarized the increasing number of regulations and guidelines that refer to ethics and corporate culture and that are now being used to hold corporations and individuals accountable. The SEC, Congress, regulators, the Sentencing Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, the Department of Justice, rating agencies and others ha ...
Leaders drive innovation by building a strong Creative Ecology through their organisations. And they don't need to be particularly creative or innovative to do so...
The Importance of Core Values: How to Captivate Customers & Compel Teams QuekelsBaro
In this Process Street article, we’ll explore why core values are important, how they align with mission and vision, and some examples of core values from other companies.
Values: The Organization's Cultural BedrockCynthia Scott
By Dennis T. Jaffe and Cynthia D. Scott
Organizations appear to have two kinds of values—hard values about profitability and business success, and softer values about people and relationships. And when push comes to shove, the conventional wisdom is that the soft values are sacrificed to the harder ones. Many people are deeply cynical when they hear about a company’s soft values, because they feel that these values about people are the first to go in times of crisis. However, some leaders feel that the softer values are just as important as the hard ones. If people do not feel that their organization can be trusted, that there are not some core values that their company stands for and is willing to struggle to uphold, then the fabric that ties people to the organization will weaken. When weakened, the willingness of people to put extra effort, to extend themselves, and to help the organization make a difference diminishes. Companies have begun to look to values as the core behind which their people can rally.
Principal of Management Report : Pharmaplex CompanyShahzeb Pirzada
Shahzeb Pirzada and his group partners make a report on a survey of a company "Pharmaplex".....
Course: Principal of Management
Details:
The organization is truly product based organization, the task provided to us is to know hierarchy of the organization the way they deal along with their products the management levels of their organization, the shareholders, the profit loss of the organization, the distribution of their products in market, to know their policy of leading their business to the peaks of the sky.
04 an expanded mc kinsey’s 7s framework prospective cosimo gualanoNevion
Able to see the big picture from the balcony is not an easy task, especially when managers are busy with day-to-day operations. The balcony‟s view plays an important role in the process of lifting a manager in a leadership position. If for a moment you compare the day-to-day operational to a dance floor, you will notice that while spending the whole evening to the dance floor, you will be aware of what happens in your immediate vicinity. Much energy will be spent on dancing and avoiding other people dancing.
This month we chatted with Freek Vermeulen, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the London Business School. He writes, consults and speaks across the world on topics such as strategies for growth, strategic innovation and making strategy
happen.
Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit and TemplatesAurelien Domont, MBA
This Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit was created by ex-McKinsey, Deloitte and BCG Management Consultants, after more than 5,000 hours of work. It is considered the world's best & most comprehensive Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit. It includes all the Frameworks, Best Practices & Templates required to successfully undertake the Digital Transformation of your organization and define a robust IT Strategy.
Editable Toolkit to help you reuse our content: 700 Powerpoint slides | 35 Excel sheets | 84 minutes of Video training
This PowerPoint presentation is only a small preview of our Toolkits. For more details, visit www.domontconsulting.com
[Note: This is a partial preview. To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
Sustainability has become an increasingly critical topic as the world recognizes the need to protect our planet and its resources for future generations. Sustainability means meeting our current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It involves long-term planning and consideration of the consequences of our actions. The goal is to create strategies that ensure the long-term viability of People, Planet, and Profit.
Leading companies such as Nike, Toyota, and Siemens are prioritizing sustainable innovation in their business models, setting an example for others to follow. In this Sustainability training presentation, you will learn key concepts, principles, and practices of sustainability applicable across industries. This training aims to create awareness and educate employees, senior executives, consultants, and other key stakeholders, including investors, policymakers, and supply chain partners, on the importance and implementation of sustainability.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles and concepts that form the foundation of sustainability within corporate environments.
2. Explore the sustainability implementation model, focusing on effective measures and reporting strategies to track and communicate sustainability efforts.
3. Identify and define best practices and critical success factors essential for achieving sustainability goals within organizations.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Key Concepts of Sustainability
2. Principles and Practices of Sustainability
3. Measures and Reporting in Sustainability
4. Sustainability Implementation & Best Practices
To download the complete presentation, visit: https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations
Implicitly or explicitly all competing businesses employ a strategy to select a mix
of marketing resources. Formulating such competitive strategies fundamentally
involves recognizing relationships between elements of the marketing mix (e.g.,
price and product quality), as well as assessing competitive and market conditions
(i.e., industry structure in the language of economics).
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
Premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions for Modern BusinessesSynapseIndia
Stay ahead of the curve with our premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions. Our expert developers utilize MongoDB, Express.js, AngularJS, and Node.js to create modern and responsive web applications. Trust us for cutting-edge solutions that drive your business growth and success.
Know more: https://www.synapseindia.com/technology/mean-stack-development-company.html
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
Set off and carry forward of losses and assessment of individuals.pptx
Total Value Framework: An Integral, Holistic Approach to Organizational Capability
1. TOTAL
VALUE
FRAMEWORK1
Michael Hamman
Bud Phillips
1
Introduc7on
This material is about Total Value and High Performance.
Most initiatives in companies focus on a single element of value being delivered
-- e.g. profitability, time to market, improving morale, increasing talent, reducing
cost, increasing quality, etc. Or, if initiatives are seeking to deliver value across
multiple dimensions, it is frequently the case that leaders and managers fail to
communicate and act consistently toward delivering multiple elements of value.
Our view is that to achieve sustained high performance in delivering value,
leaders need to focus on a number of things that are interrelated. This is
frequently hard to do, but it is worth it. Otherwise, you may not see what’s
impeding success because your focus will be too narrow. You’ll never be able to
see your blind spots. You won’t see the illusions you’re operating under -- it’s
easier to maintain an illusion without the benefit/challenge of a multidimensional,
multi-perspective view and data. Finally, you won’t be able to include a sufficient
range of involvement from a wide variety of individuals with different
perspectives.
The framework we offer here is designed to help expose the illusions and
blindspots which prevent leaders from seeing what might be truly impeding
progress toward high performance, as well as to discover multiple points of
leverage which you could use to amplify your organization's performance.
This also represents our personal experiences as leaders - we have seen many
initiatives and leaders start well, but end averagely or worse, simply because
they have been unable to effectively integrate across multiple perspectives.
2
Defining
Value
Before we discuss the Total Value Framework, we need to be sure we are on the
same page, working with a common understanding of what we mean by Value.
Work, production, etc can lead to multiple kinds of value. The customer values
1
1 The work described in these notes has been directly inspired and influenced by the work of Ken
Wilber, Robert Kegan, Chris Argyris, Otto Laske, and Bill Joiner. Specific resources are cited in
the body of the text below.
2. the “product”, for particular features and functionality, and in terms of how well
the product meets the customers needs and wants. Indeed, we do believe that
the “Customer Defines Value”, as is the case with one of the five main principles
of Lean Thinking.
Additionally, value is delivered to the owners of an organization, through profits,
dividends, and rising asset values.
Lastly Value is delivered to performers, such as salary payments, but also the
psychic or intrinsic rewards that people derive from their work and the
environment in which they work.
So, overall, we want a framework that considers Total Value. Please note that
when one leads in terms of Total Value delivered they are quite explicitly trying to
deliver value to society, not simply to one part of society.
There is a rising concern and tradition on this point. Many leaders of companies
today think in terms of not just their financial outcomes, but also the societal
contributions they can deliver.
In this regard, we think a lot of what Jim Collins writes about in Good to Great
and Built to Last, and Peter Drucker, and what Ohno and Deming have to say
about how great quality transcends the product, and permeates the entire spirit of
an enterprise.
3
Two
Dimensions
to
Total
Value
Organiza7onal
Thinking
The seeds of our framework are based on Ken Wilber’s AQAL “quadrants” map.
In this map, Wilber provides a way to capture the full dimensionality of any living
system--whether a single cell, a sentient being (e.g. a dog or a person), or a
larger social system (such as an organization--our primary concern in the work
we are doing). A good introduction to Wilber’s work in relation to quadrants (and
other related ideas) is his book A Brief History of Everything.
Our Goal with this conceptual framework is simply to have a way to organize the
many factors that are part of an organization’s ability to function and produce its
product or service. We believe this framework accomplishes that, as it basically
covers the two spectrums of individual/specific to collective/general and external,
tangible or internal/intangible (again, the foundation of Wilber’s quadrants map).
We think of this in terms of two dimensions. The first is that which encompasses
the individual/specific versus the collective/general aspects of organizations.
Organizations are comprised of individuals, with individual perspectives, beliefs,
mental models and emotional composition. Their concerns are individual and
specific. Meanwhile, we also encounter larger, collective groupings which have
2
3. their own intra- and inter- dynamics.
Meanwhile, we also face a second continuum: internal/intangible aspects of an
organization versus those aspects that are external and more tangible.
Putting these two continua together yields a four quadrant systemic way of
modeling an organization. Each quadrant presents a particular view into an
organization.
Consider, for instance, where you would place something like the price of galium
arsenide used in microchip production? How about the performance rating
system used by large corporations to assess employees. Or the beliefs people
have about the value of diversity. In which quadrant would a person’s motivation
to learn fall?
Think of other aspects of an organization. Where might these land?
4
The
Framework
In labeling these quadrants, we might come up with something like this:
3
4. Leadership, meaning either the leader, or the leadership group, occurs in the
upper left quadrant. Here we are talking about the consciousness, and the
thinking and emotional capacity of individuals. We are talking here about the
internal capacity of leaders, but not necessarily only those at the top, since we’ve
come to recognize that we need different kinds of leadership at a variety of levels
and in a variety of areas of any organization.
Culture is used to label the collective values, beliefs, attitudes that make up the
collective and internal quadrant.
Structures is used to denote the tangible processes, work methods, policies and
practices that are generally found in organizations and can be regarded as
tangible.
Marketplace is the collected external tangibles such as customers, suppliers, the
product and services themselves that we can think of as being individual or
specific to a particular company or industry.
---
Again, we’re looking for a way of modeling how we might think about an
organization in order to come to a total value view of its various dynamics and to
4
5. realize a way of embracing the needs of multiple families of stakeholders -
customers, owners, associates. We are looking for a tool that helps us to think
about all factors, not just the ones that we are predisposed to consider in
business, etc. For example many people are measurement and quantify
oriented, and tend to think of tangible and touchable things. Others are people
and relationships oriented, thinking more about thoughts, experiences, emotions.
This framework helps to identify all factors, and to arrange them in a logical way.
This model emphasizes the inextricable interconnection between individual and
group and between internal (consciousness, experience) and external
(observable behavior). For instance, we can’t talk about individual
consciousness within an organization without at some point addressing the
cultural milieu (lower left quad), social systems (lower right), and the market
aspect of the org in which that consciousness arises. Same for all of the other
quadrants.
Our other point is that to treat one or another quadrant, or one or another half of
the quadrants as self-complete and total, to the exclusion of the others, is to
commit serious errors in knowledge which can have serious ramifications,
socially, psychologically, physically. For instance, the old standard of
organizational thinking regarded management as a science, and organizations as
rational, with little emphasis given to the quality of individual experience,
relationship, or social interaction. That has changed, since some time ago we
started to recognize that these other ‘softer’ dimensions of organizational life also
affect the bottom line.
For any framework to be useful, it needs to be robust, which is the point of being
able to accommodate most items or issues. We are pretty sure that just about
any thing we can think of related to organizations and how they perform can be
categorized into these 4 basic quadrants.
We think the Total Value Framework is simple to remember, but elegant to use -
i.e., you should be able to recall it quickly, but it should also be instructive and aid
insight when used intensely.
Most importantly, over time, it should grow in familiarity and usage for the person
who is adopting and adapting it for their use.
5
6. 5
The
MARKETPLACE
Quadrant
in
Detail
The Marketplace Quadrant is principally about the product and service itself, as
well as understanding the external environment in which the product or service is
delivered. So the radials here encourage thinking about the economics of the
value chain, what is happening in the market with regard to consumer needs,
changing technologies, or changing regulations, and they encourage
consideration of the company's overall stance and position in the market place.
Much of the thinking here draws on the writings of people like Michael Porter and
Clayton Christensen, both of whom have looked mostly at how industries evolve
and how companies position themselves to achieve competitive advantage.
Much of their work is economic in nature, concerned with understanding how
factors such as input prices, economies of scale, competitive intensity, switching
costs and substitution costs affect industry returns and company profitability.
Porter in particular has delved into both industry structure and company
activities.
Evaluating the Marketplace quadrant is very important, as it will provide both
opportunities and limits with regard to what the organization can do in the other
quadrants. So for example, if a company aspires to expand its Scope, it may
very well need to consider changes in other radials and quadrants, and consider
how those changes will impact overall organization performance.
Value Chain is about understanding the definition and nature of the "Industry"
that the organization is part of - is it attractive, with growth, profit, ample learning
and career opportunities? Or is it a low margin, low differentiation industry?
What value is in it for the customers, shareholders and performers and where is
that value being appropriated? Is it a potentially “rich” place? The nature of the
6
7. value chain has real implications for just what leadership can leverage as it
pursues ways to design conditions for high performance/high value delivery.
Change considers typical market factors such as pace of technological change,
formation of new firms, consolidation. This matters in that stable vs uncertain
environments drive different challenges and opportunities for organizations, and
drive different necessities in other radials.
Scope is about the complexity of how the organization is choosing to position
itself along the scope of customer segments served, products offered, and
geographies served. Again more or less scope will have different impacts and
considerations for the organization's approach to achieving high performance.
Position is used to characterize an organization's stock of resources. Strong or
Weak may be used to denote whether a company has access to financial and
human capital thereby indicating the extent to which the organization can invest,
take risks, and make changes.
6
The
STRUCTURE
Quadrant
in
Detail
The Structure Quadrant is defined as those systems, arrangements, constructs,
policies that make up the other tangible aspects of how the company operates.
Here we are thinking about activities that are found in all organizations,
regardless of the product or service that they provide. So for example, the
policies that make up the compensation (Reward) practices of an organization.
Our view on the Structure Quadrant is heavily influenced by Lean and Agile
thinking, as best articulated by authors such as Womack, Liker, Poppendieck,
Cockburn, who, for a given product or service, are focused on understanding
how to deliver that product in a high quality, high value way.
7
8. Demand is about how customer demand for the product or service is managed.
This radial is central, as it represents a major element of how an organization
manages the interface between itself and its Customers. Here we want to
understand the nature of demand - is it regular, episodic, variable? - and we want
to understand how an organization manages the situation - does it constrain
demand, does it stress supply, does it try to achieve some flow in the demand
over a time period? How demand is managed does have a major impact on all
other radials.
Process highlights how a company thinks about the interrelationships between
activities. So we use the characterizations Functional and Systemic to get at the
preference and capability that an organization has for managing its resources.
Some organizations tend to put functional expertise as the main focus, and
others put systemic management as a major concern. Functional concern leads
to continued investment in organizational parts, and relies on negotiation and
budgeting to align resources across a value chain. Companies that have a
systemic bias tend to understand their service and product capacity better, invest
more consistently in understanding overall process performance, and may plan
and execute service or product development with more inclusivenss of all
functions.
Metrics describes how a company measures itself, and what it does with those
measures. Some organizations have many measures and metrics, and others
have few measures. How a company chooses to distinguish between result and
diagnostic measures, between quantitative and qualitative measures, and
chooses to make judgments and acts from its measures is vital to understanding
how Metrics define, limit, or expand what is possible along other quadrants and
radials.
Governance concerns the very real element that organizational control has on a
company. Are governance mechanisms (who decides, who is accountable, who
acts, who monitors) clear, vague? Are they long lasting or ad hoc? Is there
alignment between value creating chains and the governance of them? In
essence, understanding how Governance is accomplished, and how it aids or
restricts high performance value creation is many times a material element in
high performance.
The Rewards radial is about how the organization establishes its contract
between itself and its value creating performers. In particular, we are interested
in the extent to which rewards are individual or team oriented, and extrinsic or
intrinsically oriented. Elements to consider in the Rewards radial are congruence
with other radials, holistic versus technical competence incentives, short versus
long term orientation.
8
9. 7
The
CULTURE
Quadrant
in
Detail
The Culture quadrant relates to the practices through which people interact,
develop, and relate to the organization. This includes how people view
communication, learning, and people development.
People Development relates to the intrinsic presuppositions according to which
organizational stakeholders understand training and development of people. At
one extreme, people are viewed as vertical ‘resources’ whose skills and
competencies are optimized to fit the imperatives of the functional units in which
people are placed. Training and development of people are intended to serve
this vertically oriented optimization.
Under this understanding, technical training and development programs are
reserved for programmers only, while things like EQ and conflict resolution are
slated exclusively for managers and leaders. Moreover, only executive leaders
have access to management coaching. At the other extreme, people are viewed
as ‘assets’ wherein each person is understood as having a unique training and
development path that is suited to not only to skills development, but to
development of social/emotional and thinking capabilities.
Training and development programs are less vertically situated. Moreover, a
great deal of attention is given to the developmental capability of individuals.
Organizations are viewed as incubators for the development of high performance
capability of all types and at all management layers in the organization.
Communication describes an organization’s attitudes toward human
communication. At one end of the continuum, communication is viewed as
9
10. ‘closed’. From this perspective, the purpose of communication is DESCRIPTIVE:
to convey information from a source to a receiver.
At the other end of the continuum, communication is viewed as ‘open’. From this
perspective, communication orients shared understanding and commitment.
Communication is itself an END, not merely a MEANS--the point of
communication is aligned learning, discovery, and the co-creation of
organizational futures.
With a closed model of communication, information is often owned and controlled
in particular parts of the organization (for instance, at the top), and
communication is either strategic or tactical: what to do and how. Closed models
of communication tend to preserve command-control structures wherein leaders
communication strategic decisions down the chain to those who are to implement
them.
Under an open model of communication, the leader effectively says: “I’m trying to
get a kind of result: what do we WANT and WHY?”. The implication is that rather
than leaders trying to figure it out and then ‘convey’ it to followers (as would be
the case under a closed model of communication), leaders and ‘followers’ work
together to discover TOGETHER the WHAT and the WHY (and the HOW). From
an open perspective, communication is THE vehicle of strategy design, for
helping people get clear about their how they’re thinking. Communication also is
a way for reflective engagement with our thinking, to reveal the flaws and holes in
our thinking. Ultimately, in terms of communication, a big part of what leaders
are doing is the design of communication environments.
Learning addresses organizational attitudes toward learning and development.
Some organizations perceive learning as periodic, reactive, and random. Training
constitutes the bulk of proactive and formal learning situations (rather than
coaching), and it is mostly concerned with skills and competence development
within rather narrowly defined functional lines. ‘Post-mortems’ and ‘lessons
learned’ happen after big breakdowns or large project completion junctures.
They are intended to capture reflections, however only after the particularities of
day-to-day work struggles have long since passed from memory. Moreover, they
happen infrequently, and when they do happen they tend to have a high profile
status.
Consequently, people are generally not skilled at participating in them and are
not likely to be able to raise issues or challenges that may be too uncomfortable.
By contrast, other organizations take a more continuous, adaptive, designed
approach to learning. They see learning as something that happens all of the
time--learning is integrated into everyday activity--it is inseparable from day-to-
day work (e.g. Daily standups, the distinguishing of impedimants, or the practice
of frequent retrospectives on Scrum teams). Formal training courses are fewer,
10
11. and instead there is more coaching (and coaching itself is considered to be an
important skill to be developed at all levels and within all functions within the
organization). What formal courses there are, they tend to be more experiential
and they tend to deal with more holistic
organizational concerns, such as emotional intelligence, teamwork, leadership
development (at all levels, not just at the top). Moreover, there are ways to see
that the impact of training courses are demonstratably carried over into day-to-
day work. Finally, work itself is viewed as a context for learning. Pilot activities
and kansei help organizational players push the envelop, reveal otherwise
organizational (and individual) dysfunctions, and help people develop particular
targeted capabilities.
8
The
LEADERSHIP
Quadrant
in
Detail
The Leadership quadrant is concerned with individual developmental capacity.
Among the things we care about here is whether people, across the various
levels and functional silos of an organization, have thinking and socio-emotional
capacity that is congruent with the demands and complexities of the given
organization.
Those demands are given by the kinds of things we find in the Marketplace
quadrant. But, they are also related to how far out on the radials within the other
quadrants an organization aspires to be. When leadership (‘developmental’)
capability is NOT congruent with the demands and complexities of an
organization, various kinds of fallout occur, including overwhelm,
underperformance, over-regulation, epidemic quality and production issues, and
11
12. so on.
What’s hard about dealing with these kinds of organizational problems is that if
leadership capability is not up to the level of the complexity of the problems
underlying the manifesting issues, then most efforts to remedy those issues will
either fail, or require unsustainable Herculean effort on the part of the most highly
competent few.
Three radials help us get to the heart of what we’re talking about here.
Thinking refers to the cognitive dimension in which individuals make sense of
the world around them. There are three levels here:
1. Simple Logic: Simple, cut-and-dry logic. E.g. alcoholism is a function of an
individual’s lack of self-control and discipline
2. Multi-model Logic: Logic that involves simultaneous inclusion of multiple
perspectives. E.g. alcoholism is simultaneously a medical, interpersonal and
social problem the solution of which requires the synthesis of multiple
perspectives
3. Dialectical Logic: Logic that necessarily involves antithetical and paradoxical
perspectives. E.g. Stasis requires change (for instance, the tightrope walker
who needs to be constantly making small micro-movements in order to
maintain balance (stasis)).2
The implication is that as leaders--and, again, we’re talking leaders at ALL levels
in the organization--pass through toward more complex thinking capacity, their
ability to deal with situations involving high degrees of complexity increases.
Most large organizations require at least some number of people who are able to
think dialectically--that is they have the capacity for what Robert Martin calls
‘Opposable Mind’--the ability to think in terms of paradox and to see large,
complex systemic interactions.3
If Thinking refers to how people make sense of their environment, we could say
that SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL piece refers to how people make sense of their own
experience, emotionally and socially. Another way of saying this is to posit the
question: what can people BE with, emotionally and socially.
Researchers in adult development observe that, for each of us, particular
meaning ‘structures’ determine how people make sense of their experience, and
that as people mature and develop they pass from one structure to and through
other more advanced structures. In our model we follow Robert Kegan’s work in
12
2 For a full discussion of these levels, see Otto Laske, Measuring Hidden Dimensions: The Art
and Science of Fully Engaging Adults, Volume II, Laske and Associates, 2009.
3 Robert Martin, The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative
Thinking, Harvard Business School Press, 2007.
13. identifying three base structural levels4:
1. Socialized mind: team player; faithfully follows others; seeks direction from
above; is reliant on others for their sense of self.
2. Self-authoring mind: agenda-driven; ‘Leader learns in order to lead’; follows
own compass, own frame of reference (not reliant on others); independent
3. Self-transforming mind: Meta-leader; able to dwell within multiple
perspectives; ‘Leader leads in order to learn’; emotionally comfortable with
uncertainty and contradiction; sees self as emergent within the context of
critical interrelations with others similarly developed.
Again, the implication is that, while of course organizations need people at all
levels, leadership requires a mix of self-authoring and self-transforming minds,
and senior leadership, especially within complex organizational and business
settings, require minds that are of the self-transforming sort.
It should be pointed out that research shows a pretty strong correlation between
socio-emotional capacity and thinking capability. For instance, to be able to
THINK paradoxically, one must also, to a high degree, BE comfortable with
paradox in actual social and emotional situations.
This points to an important synergy between these two radials: Thinking, in the
way we are describing it here, is not just of the abstract, rational sort normally
attributed to thinking. Rather, it is directly related to our capacity to experience
what we’re able to think. This is especially salient for organizational
management and leadership, since organizational life requires a kind of thinking
that is a thinking-in-action and that is a thinking in real-time with respect to
situations that are prescient.5
The final piece in this quadrant is Competence. This refers to the skills and
ability to function in one’s particular assigned role within the organization. For
any given role there are any number of competencies and skills required, and
that is what this radial points to. This quality includes ‘subject matter expertise‘
though it is not only that. We have formulated this radial in terms of three levels:
1. Incompetent: Clearly is not able to leverage the skills and competencies
necessary for an assigned role.
2. Competent: Has the basic skills, knowledge, and ‘savvy’ to carry out one’s
role. However, such a level of competence can actually be detrimental; since
13
4 Robert Kegan, The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development, Harvard
University Press, 1982. See also Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of
Modern Life, Harvard University Press, 1998 and Otto Laske, Measuring Hidden Dimensions: The
Art and Science of Fully Engaging Adults, Volume I, Second Edition, Laske and Associates, 2011.
5 For more background on our thinking regarding thinking in action, you might consult Chris
Argyris, Knowledge in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, 1992.
14. it lacks capacity or range of variability, it often locks up into rigid patterns
when faced with uncertainty or a need for greater adaptability
3. Sensei: Has the skills, knowledge and savvy to perform in one’s role.
However, more than this, the individual has the capacity to adapt his/her skills
and knowledge in the face of uncertainty. When such a high level of
competency is matched by similarly high levels of thinking and socio-
emotional capability, this individual will contribute substantially to the
development of high performance organization.
Finally, a comment is in order regarding COMPETENCE vs CAPABILITY.
Competence, again, refers to skills, knowledge, and leveragable abilities in
relation to a particular role. Most of the time, insufficient competence can be
remedied through training and skills development. Capability, by contrast, refers
to how one THINKS and what one is able to BE with, emotionally and socially.
Competence alone is not sufficient for management and leadership roles (or any
roles which require leadership capabilities, such as, for instance, the Scrum
Master role, or a team lead role).
9
A
Holis7c
View
In this picture, we are showing each of the factors discussed so far arrayed on
the framework as a radial, arranged in the quadrant where they really define the
things we look for and seek to improve in order to achieve high performance.
14
15. What we’re saying then is that, for each factor, there are ways of thinking
and doing things that tend to be more congruent with high performance
agile organization.
Take the People Development factor. Here we either see people as plug-and-
playable resources or we see them as assets to be nurtured and developed. We
can see these factors play themselves out in subtle attitudes we might take. For
instance, if we are building a CRM system, we might build a system that makes
all of the decisions rendering telephone reps as little more than monkeys
following very prescriptive steps. People as resources. By contrast, we might
build a CRM system that provides deep information on the customer who is
calling, providing a work context in which a phone rep is asked to access a vast
repository of knowledge and insight, which of course has to be developed and
built on top of higher thinking and social-emotional capabilities (which also have
to be developed). In this last case, we have people who are adding value to an
ever-evolving, ever-improving, ever-adapting organization.
In looking across the various radials we observe that certain attitudes are more
congruent to high performance and organizational agility than others.
---
There are several inferences to be drawn from this graph, related to what we’ve
been saying so far. First, what we are doing here is to identify the high impact
factors, topics, and elements across each of the quads that we find to be
significant relative to Total Value. These may not be the only ones, but they’re
among those that we have identified.
Second, we find there are particular attitudes, and ways of thinking and behaving
that tend to more congruent with high performance than others, and these can be
reflected as the outer edges for these radials.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is a TOTAL, holistic, system -- the
qualities reflected by these radials are interrelated in complex ways and in ways
that are organic to the particular nature of your business and the Marketplace
forces that define your company’s ‘raison d’etre’.
For instance, you may have noticed that in trying to lean out your process (along
the Process radial, moving toward ‘Systemic’), you find that people tend to be
overly careful and protective or that they tend to be waiting for direction from
leadership (Communication radial). Following this up a little more closely, you
begin to have the sneaky suspicion that much of you middle management are
fearful of saying or doing the wrong thing (on the Social/Emotional radial, they
are stuck in the ‘Socialized’ sense of self, at which stage people over-identify with
particular groups or social ‘others’). Meanwhile, your leadership team has
15
16. identified new markets, calling for movement into high Change Marketplace.
The interrelations of these factors play a far bigger part in your capacity to
succeed than any single factor alone.
Now we want to observe that as a framework we are not being prescriptive, and
we are not saying that there is a distinctive place to be - instead, we are saying
that if you use this framework, you will be able to assess, characterize any
organizations current state along each of these radials, and from that you will be
able to derive insights explaining current performance, and hopefully pointing to
avenues for improving or sustaining performance. More than that, you will start
to identify actions that are systemic throughout and around the framework,
opening up possibilities that you may have not seen before.
Having said the above, we are pretty sure that organizations that are able to
move to the outside of the framework have a better chance of achieving and
sustaining high performance, but more on that later.
Another note - this is a generalized framework, and we believe it should be made
specific to an organizations context. So for example, lets assume that someone
is using the framework for a company internal organization that has internal
customers - then obviously, one would adapt the marketplace quad to fit that
situation, possibly thinking differently about how much of the value chain to
consider in evaluating things like position, scope and change. However it is easy
to see that even in the internal context, understanding what internal customers
need, how it is changing etc, is still important.
10
What
is
This
Really
About?
As leaders, we architect, design, and implement a system of conditions that lead
to high performance. Our “Design” is captured in numerous things:
Vision, Mission, Values statements...Business Plans...Training
curricula...Quarterly reports...Management by Walking around...Mentors...Shared
histories...stories...Language
Ultimately, this is about designing your organization holistically.
11
Leadership
Implica7ons
Adaptations and improvements in culture, structure, and product quads engender
conditions in which new forms of agile leadership can emerge. We can’t predict
where these will come from; however, as they emerge, people become
increasingly able partners and leaders--across functional areas (laterally) and
16
17. across management levels (hierarchically). Example: Jason Bane and the
engineering team. Metaphor: senior leaders tend to the soil in such a way that
the right kinds of plants can grow.
It is important to note that those whose thinking capacity is Simple will have a
very different perception of unfolding organization than those at at Systemic/
Dialectical. For instance, Simple thinkers will likely have a hard time with the
entire premise of this model: They dwell in the language of ‘Yes, but....’. On the
other hand, those who dwell at the level of Self-Authoring will see things strictly in
terms of their own perspective: for instance, the question of motivating others will
be based on what motivates THEM--any other approach will be dismissed. They
will want to see the organization evolve IN THEIR OWN IMAGE. This is
incredibly important to bear in mind, and is why leaders need to be willing to look
at and evolve their own meaning- and sense-making constitution, and why that
evolution is such a critical part of any meaningful agile adoption.
Another point here is that leaders must recognize their developmental
shortcomings and match the level of ambition in their organizational
transformation to their own limitations. I would assert that leadership of an
organization-wide agile transformation requires a minimum of Achiever level
capability--Experts will be way too focused on the technical aspects (e.g. are we
doing Scrum right, etc.), and Conformists should not be senior leaders anyways
(they will collapse the first moment they encounter disagreement from peers).
The inability to self-reflect is why it is so often the case that senior leader
involvement with an Agile adoption can be a serious IMPEDIMENT.
This is one reason why organizational assessment is not enough: we need to
know how leadership understands and construes the information and insights
which an organizational assessment might present.
17