Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Organizational Effectiveness
CoE
Supporting the business and HR.
2
Agenda
• OE CoE, what is it?
• Purpose.
• Scope.
• How the purpose is achieved.
• The mindset with which it is achieved.
• Organization.
• Examples: case studies.
• How? Principles for some of the element of the scope. (Team. Trust. Execution excellence.
Change.)
3
Purpose of this presentation
• Food for thought.
• Basis for feedback and discussion.
• Collect and share best practices.
OE CoE
WHAT IS IT?
5
AMBITION:
• Assist managers in going from good to great and/or “make it work” for people management related
topics.
• Project based only.
4 GOALS:
• Achieve Excellence (individual and organizational).
• Build critical mass of OE capabilities.
• Support the business to solve OE issues, on a need basis and with customized solutions.
• Engagement (visibility and recognition for local practices and people).
What the purpose is NOT:
• Duplicate the offering or support of existing functions.
• Blocker of use of external consultancy.
• A training center.
Purpose of an OE CoE
6
Execution excellence, Operational
readiness/functioning.(incl. alignment, engagement,
synergies, collaboration, speed of execution, trust)
Change mgt (and/or execution through
others).
Solution finding (dilemma
resolution, peer-to-per coaching)
Individual efficiency.Fit to role
Ways of working and
culture
Team functioning
Trust managemen
t
Scope of an OE CoE
7
2 services:
• Do and Advice: internal consulting.
• Broker: identify external consultants.
How the purpose is achieved?
Entrepreneurial:
Need based, rather than pushing an agenda . The OE team has no pre-defined mandate.
Spot the opportunities, rather than do an extensive needs analysis for the company.
8
• Non-disruptive.
Event duration is max. 0.5 day. Avoid being an add-on: suggested actions enable to better reach already
defined must-wins. Piggy-backing: not push any agenda, build on what works, integrate in existing
programs. Timing is critical: we all enjoy food but will not do so when we are not hungry.
• Pragmatic.
Simple, while grounded in established models. No need for the user to be trained or learn a theory. Leverage
solutions or ideas not implemented, that those involved suggest.
Each request for support is associated with KPIs. At the minimum, ”soft KPIs”, such as a survey before and after the
intervention and an KPIs of full execution of each deliverable of the action plans .If possible, the impact on ”hard” KPIs such
as: growth, customer loyalty, capex etc.
• Neutral, candid and straight to the point.
Always share findings even if there is a risk for “killing the messenger”. Part of our responsibility is to trigger
the energy / appetite / readiness for an initiative (just limiting ourselves to "go where the energy is" is not
sufficient).
The mindset with which it is achieved
9
• Governance body. Executive sponsor. Core team. Team lead.
• Task force “Solutions” (design of support and delivery). Network: TM&OE group, HRBP,
Highpo
• Task force “Eyes and ears” (need identification). Network: HRBP, Business heads,
Functions head
(at least) Quarterly meeting. -
• Task force “FYI” (share learning and feedback to existing functions).
(at least) Quarterly meeting.
Organization
Risk management …the main role of the governance body
In addition to having a risk map (event likely undesired concequences mitigation actions), monitor
execution/delivery elements!
Elements to monitor are for example:
• The action being disruptive of the ability to deliver on operational/customer related commitments.
• “To good to be true” KPIs. Lack of response to surveys. Lack of time to let-go of old ways. Few complaints. Few
request to “move faster”.
• Retention of key/rare talents. Loss of corporate knowledge
• Compliance styles of change relays.
• Lack of focus/several actions that have a common core but not roll-out in a way that triggers synergies.
• Lack of concrete actions or follow-up to workshops/communication actions.
• “Excuses” such as: change is chaotic, people resist change …
• Slips in deadlines. Unrealistic workloads.
• People consulted or involved not being representative of the whole organization.
• Reputation issues.
• Gossiping and rumors.
• Increased staffing costs. Increased reliance on a contingent workforce.
10
CASE STUDIES
• Situation
The leadership team identified 11 issues in order ensure operational readiness. Amongst them, 3 were non-
technical: alignment, engagement, and readiness of successors.
• Need
Go from symptoms to root causes. Identify actions to implement immediately.
• Solution
Interview of managers. Feedback to the leadership team and agreement on immediate actions such as:
extended leadership workshop to clarify the ambition and roadmap for Isocyanates, and then implement
initiatives such as: peer-to-peer coaching 2h workshops, 1day workshops on specific leadership skills, team
event only focused on social bonding, script based tools for managers to ensure structured listening and
dialogues, invest heavily in clarifying HR policy related issues, swap roles with successors, delegation
scorecard between role holders and their successors….
Operational Readiness.
• Situation
Conflicts handled in an avoidance manner by role holders, with a risk of not facing upfront un-desired or
un-safe behaviours.
• Need
Build upon an initial assessment done of the 25 role holders(Conflict resolution style, competencies, view of
their role).
• Solution
Give meaning to the initial assessment, in terms of derailment risks and preferred patterns.
Design and deliver a development/pressure testing and alignment about “What is critical in the role”
initiative (< 3 days).
Collect suggestions about how to adjust the context (“What do you need from the context?” , “How does it
dictate the choices you have and/or make?”).
Efficiency when under pressure.
• Situation: The company wanted to ensure all adopt a set of core behaviors. It had a good enough
adoption of corporate values. Each BU emphasized different sets of core behaviors, and a set of targeted
behavior were identified as needed across BUs.
• Need: Pull employees to “live and breath” this set of targeted behaviors.
• Solution: 2 tactical choices:
1. Connect the targeted behaviours to the organizational values
Why? Anchor the targeted behaviours and avoid the need to “remember them”. Coherence, simplicity, enable to connect
the dots/initiatives related to behaviours , avoid that initiatives are add-ons: focus on the butterfly effect / the 5% that
create the 95% effect.
2. All employees , and their people context, go through an action / “So what?” focused
process , o!BADKAR:
o!BADKAR, is the frame of the roadmap as each deliverable targets one or several of the steps.
Ownership (toward the company, not specifically toward the targeted behaviours = a) Care for the
company enough to take the risk to stand up against e.g. their boss not demonstrating the targeted
behaviours. b) Trust their boss, peers and the senior leader.
And towards the targeted behaviours: Beliefs, Awakening, Desire, Abilities and Re-enforcement.
Trigger a set of core behaviors.
• A set of deliverables:
1. Shape the “soft” context, thanks to: O.5 day workshops, (“critical incidents”) for all.
Agenda = Q&A to clarify + solve 2 must-wins and discover that they are better solved thanks to the embodying
the targeted behaviours.
Rolled-out according to a flow of change according to a ”Zigzag” pattern (i.e. both top down and bottom up and in
dispersed work- units). Followed up through random surveys about remedial actions + Intranet discussion
groups.
2. Shape the “hard “context, thanks to the alignment to the targeted behaviours of processes. For example:
Scripts for sanity-checking meetings and action plans.
Alignment to the targeted behaviours of operational processes and organizational health (decision-making …).
Alignment of engagement surveys. Intranet forum: spontaneous discussions and/or questions proposed by Exec
team.
3. Shape a supportive context, thanks to training. For example:
Event for leaders, and, regular feedback for all, based on interviews, on : a) how they behave when the stakes are high b) at what moment
their behaviours contradict the targeted behaviours.
Training and Peer-to-Peer coaching (“open space workshop”), about how to build trust and care for the company.
People management processes alignment (Career paths, Promotion decisions, Performance focus, IDP, ...).
• Situation
The BU planned the launch of and engagement survey process in order to support the business
performance.
• Need
Support for the design and buy-in towards a consultative and customized process to design the survey
content and the implementation choices. Ground the solution in the realities and specificities of the
company and the BU.
• Solution
Adopt a consultative risk management focused solution, delivered by first interviewing the BU´s leaders and
managers key success factors / risk management / …. Process.
Then do the same for other parts of the company. Finally a company-wide shared solution.
Engagement driven by on BU.
• Situation
Ambition to send a clear message that the company walks the talk on being a career developmental
opportunity.
Implement a risk management initiative, aimed at accelerating the development of, the already identified,
successors , with an ambition of being “ready” within less than 9 months.
• Need
A process applicable to all levels of leadership (only the focus/content/tests/interview questions changes).
Build an agreed upon development plan, customized to each successor, where their boss has an active role
to play.
Ensure a structured, collaborative, transparent and step-by-step design of the development plan.
Ensure that the development plans are focused (i.e. targeted on critical gaps);
Triggers a sense of urgency amongst the successors and their boss.
Target on-the-job development;.
Render it easier for the boss to support the growth of the successor.
Collaborative design & execution of Development plans
• Solution
1. Set the foundations. Definition of the target role by the boss and their boss. Collect the current development
plan designed by the boss for the successor. Online test/case study. Pre-work by the successor (“How to
succeed in the SI role …).
2. Interview, 3h.
3. Report production: gaps, promotability (i.e. Readiness vs. Ease of development matrix), 1st draft of
development plan.
4. Debrief with the boss, and, agreement on 2nd draft of the development and the support action plan of the
boss.
5. Feedback to the successor (sharing of the report), and 3rd draft of the development plan.
6. The successor and the boss sign-off the finalized development plan.
7. Update the boss´s boss. Definition of next steps.
8. Support of the execution of the development plan by and internal/external coach: broker support, track
progress , coach, include in annual goals
How?
PRINCIPLES FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE SCOPE.
Filters to keep in mind, with regards to Execution excellence.A critical filter is to ask what are doing/should we do in a “VUCA” world (Volatility Uncertainty Complexity Ambiguity)?
People behave the way they do, typically, because their behaviour • Enables them to avoid paralysis (i.e. avoid doubt, cognitive dissonance, guilt or boredom);• Enables them to avoid something negative or a loss (rather than achieving a goal);• Is tempting;• Is “normal” (i.e. “gets them the path of least resistance towards themselves”, is accepted/favoured by the
group to which they identify themselves with, is aligned with their compentency comfort zone, is aligned to their social role;
• Is “made easy” by the context.
As a consequence, in order to avoid procrastination or feel an urgency to act, the reason to act needs to be a risk or a threat that is personal, e.g.• Be a personifiable bad guy/ enemy.• Move us (makes us angry or upset or disgusted).• Have immediacy / be sudden. Not be gradual.• Be certain.• Be based on a trusted source of data or rational.• Be important for those who re important for you.• Trigger pride or even better, avoid shame.
• Small actions or details make a “systemic” / big / lasting difference because they target the links between
elements rather than elements (e.g. the hand-over/transition phases and points of collaboration).
• You do not improve an organization as a whole by improving the performance of one or more of its
parts – there is a need for a critical mass / pivotal point.
• People cannot, not learn, every day. Culture is an ad-hoc process / a result: people in organizations
develop the culture as they figure out how to survive and thrive.
• The only true differentiator for an organization is the behaviours of its people
• Organizations are integrated collections of small groups, each of which must be won over for a
movement (a change, an execution …) to go forward. Managers need to think not in terms of formal
organizations, but informal ecosystems made of small, loosely connected groups united by a shared context
(values, mission, goal …)
• The more you try to get rid of what you do not want, the less likely you are to get what you want or the more
likely you are to get something you want even less (e.g. prohibition stimulated organized crime). Thus, target
the solution / ideal future, not the problems.
• Our guiding values offer the most important leverage point for enduring and embodying in a self-
sustaining manner a change/mindset.
• As you attempt to understand a situation:
Look for distant root causes (in time or space) since the immediate ones are probably only circumstantial
”causes”.
Do not look for linear causalities, but rather ”tipping points”.
Look for causes thar have a disproportioanl effect.
• Typically the best long term solutions have a ”worse-before-better” pattern, as opposed to ineffective
solution that generate transitory improvement before the problem grows worse.
• Culture, and in particular values, are the result of trying different ways of solving a dilemma
composed two acceptable ways, and then selecting one of theses ways as defining “the way we do things
here”.
Alignment ( … and, engagement collaboration across silos, interface efficiency , trust management…).
• A vision is not enough, shared decision making criteria are needed, such as the criteria defining what
makes something important / urgent / feasible, and, an agreement on mutual Rights and Duties is also needed.
• Triggers to avoid disengagement/motivation, and those to enhance it, are of a different nature (i.e. cannot
compensate for each other), and the relative importance of the triggers is not static.
• The best leadership style is dictated by the context, is about followership and is the result of a co-creation.
• As you measure things, remember that:
The past is not predictive of the future unless the context remains the same.
Few things can be put in a label or box. Few things can be compared since they are not of the same
nature or time has past between them.
Most things or concepts are only observable but not measurable and/or can by essence have a too loose
definition (e.g. morality, engagement, performance, satisfaction, trust, intelligence, potential, impact).
Average does not exist in the real world, only in statistics.
No one wants to be rated on a five point scale. Grades are not numbers, they are at most numerals (i.e.
number symbols), that at best can be ordered without the distances between grades having a numerical sense.
The quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question asked. If you do not know how to measure
what you want, you end up settling for wanting what you can measure.
Data without its context has little meaning. “It depends” is the right answer most of the time.
Use short tracking periods (i.e. use metrics to adjust rather than just evaluate).
Use metrics that tell you something you do not already know/have a good hunch about.
Living systems generate properties that are not predictable from the properties of their individual parts.
Precision is not the same as accuracy.
No one can predict the future. 1 single causality very very rarely exists in the real world.
24
• For solving dilemmas, it is recommended to use of the TRIZ approach (and at times for creativity).
• For peer to peer coaching/mentoring, it is recommended to use the Open space meeting method combined
with the use of the GROW (Goals Realities Options Will) model.
• Most interpersonal skills, are best viewed as processes with an ideal sequence of steps, rather than a
list of behaviors (do and don’t´). There is little value in doing the “right” thing if the foundations for them are
not there. Things to achieve a purpose (e.g. motivate) are of a different nature compared to those to avoid it´s
opposite (e.g. avoid demotivation).
• For solution finding, it is recommended to use an approach that integrates Appreciative Inquiry, the Ladder
of inference , Force field and the GROW approaches (if errors are very costly, it should be preceded by using
the problem solving cycle approach).
• Culture is the choice made when face with two acceptable options of a dilemma, and thus the manifestation
of the collective subconscious beliefs and habits of the leaders and employees in the organization (just like our
own mind, the subconscious dictates more than 95-98% of its beliefs, thinking, decision making and behaviour
on a day to day basis).
• When faces with several issue that seem remotely related, identify each issue´s root causes, then
decompose them into elements (acts or beliefs), and decompose the latter again.
Solution finding, to complex issues.
• A typical intervention process
is not just for junior leaders move from good to great, avoids finger pointing (assess the team as such, rather than its members or its
leader), surfaces best actions to take by the leader, produce data/numbers, not a “jumping from bridges" approach, does not tigger
ownership by team members is enhanced.
• A typical intervention process is composed of the steps:
A. Define the current state, and, the most impactful thing to work on now. (Ownership. Awakening)
Diagnostic (questionnaire + 1h interviews). Report Action taking Workshop: Feedback, build further on the suggestions, prioritization.
B. Complementarity enhancement.
Interviews (my expectations of others, my needs, how to get the best out of us ….). Action taking Workshop: Feedback, build further on the suggestions,
prioritization of suggestions.
C. Continuous improvement actions. (Desire. Knowledge. Abilities. Re-enforcement)
The team agrees on question/team efficiency topic to work on together (Each on selects one but is interviewed on all in next step. A list of questions exists,
based on 3 levels of functioning). Interviews to go from symptoms to root causes/suggestions and experiments to try out. Action taking Workshop:
Feedback, build further on the suggestions, prioritization of suggestions.
C. KPI of the team functioning. Light (Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, Results, Trust) and/or In-depth (Diagnostic as in “A.”)
Team functioning and performance
A team can be in one of 16 types of team functioning
A) Task delivery• Grade 1: Where are we going and why are we here• Grade 2. Ways of working • Grade 3. Information and knowledge sharing, internal and external • Grade 4. Collaborative solution finding, internal and external. B) Relationship • Grade 1. Passivity and prudence of team members • Grade 2. Resistance, internal and external. • Grade 3. Solidarity, internal and external. • Grade 4. Synergies, internal and external.
Stage I :Immature Group. Team members look to the leader for all leadership,
direction, support and task definition / productivity. They are mildly eager, have
positive expectations, and show anxiety about the task and each other.
Stage II : Fragmented Group. There are leadership struggles, incomplete
communication, arguments and taking things personally. Team members experience a
discrepancy between their initial hopes and expectations and what has become the
«reality» of the situation. They appear confused, and they may express concern about
competence.
Stage III : Sharing Group. There is an open exchange of feelings, facts, ideas,
preferences and support. There a comfortable condition, and team members thus do
not want to "rock the boat."
Stage IV : Effective team. See next slide
Most team members can, want and actually do identify the blockers and enablers of the team tasks being accomplished. Task delivery related issues are solved before they become serious problems and impact on the morale and performance of the team.
The agenda of team meetings and of team work are set as much by team members as by the team leader. Appropriate leadership by one of the team members emerges spontaneously. Team members decide together to function as a group or as subgroups, according to the need and/or according to the interests or skills of team members.
There is an explicit, open, transparent, and shared decision-making process, as opposed to it being e.g. ad-hoc.
When a team member is entrusted with a task or a project, the team leader delegates responsibilities fully, thus giving the member a feeling of a great sense of control and responsibility with the results the team reaches. The team leader acts as a neutral mediator and as a mentor, with regards to best accomplish tasks together.
The team has a process that constantly monitors the relevance of its goals and action plans. Most team members actively participate in setting the “what” and “how” goals of the team.
All team members have their eyes on the organization´s end customers when they act on behalf of the team. The team focuses more on its customers than on itself. All team members work well with other teams and the team is seen as cooperative and creating synergies with other teams.
All team members discuss problems objectively and do not form coalitions to pressure others into agreement. Team members confront each other's assumptions in ways that enrich creativity and problem solving. As a rule, to see another team member win an argument is really not an issue for team member loosing the argumentation. Most team members not only work hard together, they also have fun together. Team members all talk and listen in roughly equal amount and interest, thus keeping contributions short and constructive.
Enthusiasm for new ways of seeing things takes as much weight as playing it safe when considering options in a decision.
All team members truly believe they need each other to achieve the team’s tasks. All team members truly believe they need each other to do the task they are accountable for outside of the team.
Some team members may disagree with a decision, but they will fully support its execution.
The team spends scheduled time to improve relations inside the team. The team spends scheduled time to improve relations it has with the rest or the organization and customers.
A well functioning team
• When to focus on trust? Why bother?
There is not a single must-win for an organization and a leader/manager/expert, that is not dependent on
the ability to manage trust.
Trust is probably companies’ number one, or only, true competitive advantage (rare, highly valued, cannot be
acquired or bought, has a domino effect on the potential to build other competitive advantages …..).
Address the elephant in the room: most issues and solutions boil down to tackling a trust issue! Discussing
trust is an reveals real and rarely addressed root-causes or issues that are important for people!
• What criteria should the approach/model you select satisfy?
Pragmatic, Structured, Simple and Realistic: a 5 steps process rather than a laundry list of behaviours.
Applicable towards any target, topic of trust or culture. Credible and Relevant for Executives.
Useful in order to go from bad to good or from good to great.
Incorporated easily in existing ways of doing business or managing employees.
28
Trust building and repairing, is a process.
What ACTIONS can be taken? Output
1st, a Solution-finding audit.
For the organization.
• Solutions suggested by employees or customers (indeed, trust is too complex / legacy based / perception based, for any
standard recommendation to be relevant, even the ones in our book!).
• Data that is relevant and actionable since it targets each of 5 steps of managing trust (see next slide).
• Build trust of customers, of employees, of team members, of stakeholders.
• Input for a change management roadmap based on the “O! BADKAR” model Communication plans. Shape the
context. Action by leaders. Workshops
For the employee.
• Co-creation of solutions, that are relevant locally and globally.
What ACTIONS can be taken? Output
2nd, as, one, part of the Change roadmpa, Skills building.
For the organization.
• Shared approach, applicable in any context / culture, to building trust.
• Focus on the number 1 lever of performance.
• Quickly build a Critical mass, since workshops are 1 -2 days.
• No add-on, since current must-wins are used as input and solved during the workshops.
For the employee.
• Simple but not simplistic solutions and tactics to build trust.
• No need to ”remember” a lot of things /a laundry list of behaviors.
It is a process:
1. Readiness to trust somebody.2. Desire to trust you, as a person.3. Confidence in entrusting you with doing a particular thing.4. Reinforce the trust given to you.5. Un-conditional trust
9 principles enable you to identify the 1 thing to do:
6. Trust is a linear process, sometimes best addressed in a non-linear manner.7. There is not a one-size-fits-all way to lose trust or rebuild it.8. The trust process is the same for all, but needs to be managed differently each time.9. Trust is about proof, but it is also about imagination.10.To be trustworthy, you do not need to be a perfect person.11.Behaviours that are required in the different steps of the trust process, can seem incompatible.12.Trust is only personal.13.Trust is contextual.
Trusted! In a nutshell is …..
What is trust?
Trust is more than confidence.
Trust is:
• A leap of faith into the unknown,
• A feeling of certainty,
• A lack of fear towards a person and in the company of a person,
• A true desire to learn and search for solutions together with the other person with regard to the thing with
which the other is entrusted,
• A true desire to allow the other person to stretch your own comfort zone,
• A state of readiness for unguarded interaction with the other person,
• An expectation that the other person will not allow you to be harmed at a time when you are vulnerable.
Principles to adapt the trust process to specific situations.
• Trust is a linear process, sometimes best addressed in a non-linear manner.If you do not fully achieve a step it will come back to haunt you. Moving on to the immediate next step can have a retroactive positive effect on a previous step you did not fully achieve.
• There is not a one-size-fits-all way to lose trust or rebuild it.Losing trust means not doing what is expected at the step of the process you are at.
• The trust process is the same for all, but needs to be managed differently each time.Each person values the importance of each of the steps differently, depending on preferences and the stakes.
• Trust is about proof, but it is also about imagination.Imagination, is triggered by step 2 and is colored by step 1 (readiness). Proofs” are imagined inferences and assumptions. Intent can count as much or more than actual behaviors, and intents can only be imagined.
• To be trustworthy, you do not need to be a perfect person.Step 1 (readiness) has nothing to do with you. Beyond step 1, trust is not about “not do to others what you do not want others to do to you”; rather, it is about “do to others what they want you to do”.
• Behaviors that are required in the different steps of the trust process, can seem incompatible.e.g. in step 3 (confidence), prudence is a valued, but can be seen as cowardice in step 5 (unconditional).
• Trust is only personal.You actually do not trust an institution, a group of people or an organization as such. You trust the person that represent them for you.
• Trust is contextual. Just because you are trustworthy with regard to one thing in the eyes of one person doesn’t mean you are trustworthy with regard to a different thing or to the same thing by another person.
• Manage in one way, but organize in another:
Change is local and co-delivered and co-defined, but, there is a need to enable this inside a given frame. This
frame can be the ways local conversations are structured thanks to question that are new or trigger new insights. This
frame can be a tentative definition of the “what” of the change, to be fine-tuned/modified by people who are expected to
embody the change.
• Address psychological and organizational dynamics, as processes:
Change requires that people go through a process, composed of the stages “O!BADKAR” (Ownership, Beliefs,
Awakening/awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Abilities, Re-enforcement), and thus, go through a process of “Unfreeze, Change
and Act, Re-freeze” behaviors/habits/mindset/beliefs ….
• Use a “Systems” rather than Analytical thinking:
Roadmap elements are “rolled-out” in a zigzag pattern (opportunistic, both bottom and top-down …), with a focus on
creating a critical mass/tipping point, and, on the interfaces/borders/connections between the groups in an organization.
To overcome inertia, remember that complex systems respond to their environment to maintain their coherence. It
happens at every level of the organization ( People will do whatever is easiest for them to do / a system will change in the
direction of using less energy. Stay away from big plans to change what is very hard to change. Look at the flow of
information and reduce friction e.g. by co- defining the issue.)
Change is a process
• Be focused and pragmatic:
The “what” of the change should: be a common denominator to other desired changes, and, be linked or a direct
consequence of something that is already embodied/accepted/anchored and that is easy to remember (such as
organizational values, people’s needs/fears/assets/privileges …).
Single events should be limited to max. 1 day duration, and, should focus on achieving a step of the change roadmap while
at the same time enabling participants to immediately/during the event use the change in order “to better
reach their already defined operational must-wins/goals”.
• Govern, rather than push for change:
Change is best achieved if it is self-discovery. (people are more ambitious when they define or discover for
themselves actions they need to do, and, the person people are most afraid of disagreeing with is themselves).
The goal of a leader of a change, is not (just) to “kill” resistance, it is to create self-driven engagement and commitment
toward the change (once resistance is created, it can become part of the person's identity / strokes).
Change is best achieved if you allow people time and support to digest the need for and the meaning of, the change,
and, to let go of old ways.
To trigger action/learning/change, leverage people’s very strong need to avoid cognitive dissonance, rather than
leveraging introspection.
Emotions and behaviors are contagious (people are influenced by friends of friends even if they do not know them).
A typical Roadmap is
Ownership
Context deliverables
Beliefs
Context deliverables
Desire
Context deliverables
Knowledge
Context deliverables
Abilities
Context deliverables
Re-enforcement
Context deliverables
”Why bother?” workshop ”Critical incidents?” workshop
