EFQM EDUCATION COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE - Bergen
BEHAVIOUR AS A
DIAGNOSTIC TOOL
IN PARTNERSHIPS
Dr John Carlisle, Teacher of Adults, magister ludi
Associate: Centre for Integral Excellence
Sheffield Hallam University
PRESENTATION FLOW
• THE NEED FOR CHANGE TO COOPERATION,
i.e. our organisations are, at best, suboptimised – and there are serious
consequences: Performance, environment
and morality
• THE CAUSES LIE IN THE WAY WE THINK
AND BEHAVE
• THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE BOTH
• EXAMPLES OF THE BEHAVIOURAL
CHANGES AND CONSEQUENCES
CAUSES OF THE FAILURE
Our habits of thinking:
Not understanding our
organisations, i.e. thinking
we are leading a university,
when it is, first of all, an
organisation (“der ding an
sicht”) The king thought he was
building a castle!
Traditional Organisation
“FREE TO THINK”
(TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL)
Intellectual Capital
K
Blaming and Defending
N
Intellectual Capital
O
EFFORT
W
L
Internal System and
Relationship Failure
E
D
Competitive
Policies
e.g. ranking, departments
competing, bonuses
Copyright John Carlisle, 1997
G
E
Feedback for Relationships
and Systems Improvement
Relationship Failures
Trust-Building
Cooperative
Policies
e.g. Teamworking,
knowledge-sharing
EFFORT
External Relationship Failure
FROM HIERARCHICAL THINKING (Dr W Edwards Deming)….
Main_Idea
TO SYSTEM THINKING….
REDESIGN
FEEDBACK FROM
CONSUMERS
TRANSFORMATION
SUPPLIERS
CUSTOMERS
FROM TRADITIONAL EDUCATION “MANAGING” - CONTROL
Main_Idea
TO WORLD CLASS “ENABLING” – EFFECTIVE WHOLE
GOVERNANCE
DESIGN & REDESIGN
FEEDBACK – EXPLICIT NEEDS of
USERS and ENVIRONMENT
LEARNER-CENTERED PEDAGOGY
PROVIDERS
USERS
We need, therefore,
PARADIGM SHIFT
Managing the meta and
micro together:
CONSCIOUSNESS
and
COMPETENCE
CONSCIOUSNESS
Conscious
Incompetence
Conscious
Competence
Unconscious
Incompetence
Unconscious
Competence
COMPETENCE
Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997
CONSCIOUSNESS??
Conscious
Incompetence
Conscious
Competence
Unconscious
Incompetence
Unconscious
Competence
COMPETENCE
Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997
RAISING CONSCIOUSNESS
• PERFORMANCE DATA:
Grades, Growth, Profit
• MAKE VISIBLE: Challenge
Policies, esp. incentives
“FREE TO THINK”
(TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL)
Intellectual Capital
K
Blaming and Defending
N
Intellectual Capital
O
EFFORT
W
L
Internal System and
Relationship Failure
E
D
Competitive
Policies
e.g. ranking, departments
competing, bonuses
Copyright John Carlisle, 1997
G
E
Feedback for Relationships
and Systems Improvement
Relationship Failures
Trust-Building
Cooperative
Policies
e.g. Teamworking,
knowledge-sharing
EFFORT
External Relationship Failure
CONSCIOUSNESS
Conscious
Incompetence
Conscious
Competence
Unconscious
Incompetence
Unconscious
Competence
COMPETENCE??
Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997
COMPETENCE (EI)
• MAKE VISIBLE: Appropriate,
Valid Models of Success
• BEHAVIOURAL
PERFORMANCE DATA
• SKILL PRACTICE
• PDSA
COOPERATION: AN ORGANISATIONAL COMPETENCE
The Learning Disadvantage of Power and Control
(client not learning; but always paying!)
CLIENTS
CONTRACTORS
“INCLUSIVE”
17%
31%
- Asking Questions
- Building On Others’
Ideas
“TELL”
- Giving Information
- Making Proposals
83%
69%
Source: Three major strategic alliances and project partnerships in Europe
Relationship sample : 118 Senior Managers
EI
TOP TEAMS
GROUP BEHAVIOUR RATIOS
COMBINED MEETINGS
9% 10%
13% 15%
11%
24%
81
70%
48%
“NORMAL” MEETINGS
#
48
Railtrack
Best
27
Practice
16
3:1
9
Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997 / 2002
72
PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS#
= Giving information
= Asking questions
= INITIATING
= REACTING
CLARIFYING
TAGUCHI CURVE MONITORING RELATIONSHIPS
Noting that all waste is ultimately a loss to society
Impact on
Relationship
‘A’ Disappointed
?
Both feel fairly treated
Area
of
Waste
‘B’ Disappointed
?
Area
of
Profit
Area
of
Waste
Damages
Win/Lose feeling
Decreased Trust
Minimum riskwillingness
?
Win/Win feeling
Increased Trust
Increased Likelihood
of added value
both delighted
Strengthens
assessment
Win/Lose feeling
Decreased Trust
Minimum riskwillingness
1
2
3
4
‘B’ should
take action
Copyright John Carlisle, with Parker & Doyle, 1997
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
8
Optimum Quality of
Implementation
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
‘A’ should
take action
Social Housing Project Cost
• Commit to Invest
£4,500,000
• Original Budget
£3,439,000
• Project Variations
£ 165,000
• Final project cost
£3,604,000
• Percentage variance
• Overall Saving
+4.8%
£896,000 or 20%
Programme Delivery
• Commit to Invest Programme 96 weeks
• Agree Project Programme
58 weeks
• Extensions of time
4 weeks
• Revised contract period
62 weeks
• Actual contract period
62weeks
• Project completed
On Time
• Overall Saving 34 weeks or 35%