Four Groups

Archive for the ‘4G’ Category

Over at MiX, (here), Luc Galoppin posted an excellent blog that succinctly summarises some of the inherent problems and contradictions present in most HR departments. These can be summarised by HR’s ongoing desire for a seat at the top table and to be seen as a key driver of organisational strategy and change that have been top of the HR agenda since the publication of Dave Ulrich’s 1997 book Human Resource Champions (here).

One of Galoppin’s key assertions is that rather than an agent for change, which many HRD’s like to see themselves as (being able to design, implement and promote organisational change programs). HR is in fact naturally much better placed to act as a stabilising force within the business, as he states an agent of continuity during periods of change. Galoppin states:

“In short, HR does not posses the skills that are required to manage change initiatives. Instead, HR’s strength is that of a ‘Continuity Agent’, a stabilizer if you will.”

This makes sense when one considers HR’s traditional strengths such as developing systems and outlining processes and best practice. On the other hand, to be an active proponent and driver of change requires a much more disruptive and experimental approach, not natural attributes one would think of when describing most HR professionals.

The Ulrichian logic that the best way for HR to increase its influence is by being at the heart of decision-making and having greater influence over strategy and decision-making is according to Galoppin the wrong way for HR to think about its position within the business.

All is not lost however and Galoppin charts a three-step process that could help improve matters. By focusing on developing credibility and embedding HR within the business rather than an independent support function, things can change:

“The third step for HR is empowering the business by outsourcing the core part of their activities … to the business. Whereas step 1 may include the outsourcing of administrative tasks to a shared service center, this step will require a handover of activities to the business. That way, HR processes get managed where they live and exist: on the shop floor among the people.

Only by abdicating power and embedding HR practice directly within the business can HR prove its value. For many HR professionals still committed to the idea of a seat at the top table, this is unlikely to go down well. Many HRDs argue that to be influential they need to have control over all these people issues, when in actual fact the opposite is true. For HR to be seen to add real value to the organisation, the HR department needs to devolve as much control as possible.

It is however important to emphasise that the current predicament is not solely down to the inability of HR departments to demonstrate value. In many cases senior executives are guilty of failing to appreciate the complexity and importance of human behaviour, relationships and collaboration when it comes to organisational performance. As Galoppin puts it:

“The attitude in most projects is exemplified by this statement: “We’ll take care of the process re-engineering and the technical stuff; HR will do the soft stuff.””

The compartmentalising of the “soft stuff” is a very damaging attitude to have and highlights why many change projects are doomed to failure from the start. What many senior executives fail to appreciate is that it is actually the intangible people-side of things that is the hardest and most complex element of any change program that cannot be effectively sub-contracted to HR. In fact it can be argued that people-based issues represent the greatest risk to the success of any project. For this mindset to change, arguably it is going to require more than HR to prove its value, instead it will require senior executives to prioritise the naturally intangible, woolly and complex issues that surround the behavioural aspects of change.

Improve performance by 20% or more Join Bruce Lewin of Four Groups and Professor Vlatka Hlupic from the University of Westminster for a free webinar. Wednesday 9th February 4pm UK time, 11am EST

Professor Hlupic – Removing Bottlenecks

Professor Hlupic introduces some recent research including her publication in the Harvard Business Review.

Highlights include;

How to raise performance by 20% plus by balancing people and economics
How the 6 Box Model highlights and closes gaps in organisations
How to deal with the increasing pace of change and prevent stagnation

Bruce Lewin – Raising Performance by 20 – 40%

Bruce Lewin from Four Groups introduces 4G and the Visual Team Builder, a tool to predict and visualise relationships and group dynamics.

Highlights include;

How to ‘bottle’ high performance and replicate it across the business

How to improve communications and enhance team productivity

How to spot difficult relationships and stop them reducing performance

Case Studies and Examples

• Google
• HCL Technologies
• The National Health Service
• Harvard Business Review

I came across this intriguing post from Robin Dickinson, asking about people measure the quality of their relationships.

This comment really caught my eye;

Given that we are empowered to make literally 1000′s of such connections [via social media], this then begs the questions – where do we best place our limited resources. Who do we invest our time in? How do we determine who to deepen (to use Brad’s quality indicator) our relationships with? Who do we say ‘No’ to and why? As this social connectivity continues to explode exponentially, it will be interesting to see how we humans address this question of quality.

Squaring the realities of near endless choice (online) with limited time opens up something of an interesting conundrum. Where is my time and energy best spent in order to maximise the happiness/satisfaction/productivity (etc. etc.) of any particular relationship that I choose to develop?

From a commercial perspective, how can I enhance my existing relationships and even start to predict the outcomes of new relationships that I might develop (e.g. recruitment, new project teams, restructuring etc.)?

Does a better understanding of relationships improve performance, save time and help enhance decision making? We’ve found various sources of research that suggests better relationships lead to performance improvements by 20 – 40% or more.

From Four Groups’ point of view, the Visual Team Builder offers one approach that sheds light on these types of questions.

There’s a now a video demonstration of 4G on the Management Due Diligence page. You can see the video below, or on the Management Due Diligence page.

Management Due Diligence Video Demonstration

Justin Kirby was very kind to do a writeup of our contribution to a NESTA funded research project he was involved in.

These ideas aren’t dissimilar to what I wrote about re: Jackie Orme and I’ve added a short extract below.

Many large organisations claim to have excellent and world-class capabilities in:

• Business processes
• Collaborative software (video conferencing, blogs, wikis etc.)
• Developmental support (workshops, training, coaching, learning etc.)

What appears to be missing from the client perspective is a methodology, system or tool (e.g. Kaplan Norton ‘Balanced Score Card’, Six Sigma, etc.) to help optimise collaboration, working relationships and productivity, particularly if a new
project is starting or a new initiative is under way.

So while the three areas mentioned earlier are very well understood by the majority of large organisations, a means or method to ‘scale’ collaboration and help enhance productivity in a systematic fashion is potentially a missing piece of the jigsaw.

By providing a systematic methodology and framework for decision making, research participant Bruce Lewin of 4 Groups has suggested that their 4G technology helps optimise the often ‘hard to manage’ or intangible elements of collaboration, namely working relationships, shared values and creative tensions that are part and parcel of any collaborative activity.

Welcome the second review of 2010. In this issue we have a ramble around current thinking on engagement, kick the tyres on organisational behaviour and give the old leadership tree a good shake. We’ll also explore the following themes;

• Engagement
• Strategic HR
• Productivity
• Complexity
• The Dunning Kruger Effect
• High Potentials

Articles are included from the likes of Accenture, BP, Charlene Li, Gary Hamel, Google, HCL Technologies, MIT, Sainsbury’s, Seth Godin and Strategy + Business.

Tag Cloud

Read the rest of this entry »

Welcome to the first update for 2010. In the spirit of new beginnings, in this issue we will look at how the debate around organisational performance is widening. We’ll also look at how after 18 months of economic chaos, the fundamentals of organisational behaviour and what everyone has taken for granted about motivation and engagement could have played a key role in recent events. We’ll also touch on the following themes;

• Mergers, Acquisitions and Human Capital
• Motivation and Engagement
• Myths surrounding Top Talent
• New Ways to Engage via Social Network Analysis
• Limits of Understanding around Managerial Behaviour
• Passion and Purpose
• Innovation Constraints
• Managing Tacit Knowledge

Articles are included from the likes of Deliotte, Gary Hamel, Henry Minzberg, HR Magazine, Karen Stephenson, McKinsey and Strategy + Business.

Tag Cloud

Read the rest of this entry »

We were recently featured in a piece on the HR Matters site. We spoke about our work with 4G and how it can aid understanding and problem solving efforts. Here’s a quick introduction.

We discussed the idea that people-based issues can be managed in a systematic and structured manner, something that Bruce is firmly in support of. 4G represents a proprietary approach developed by his company to understand and predict intangible aspects of people’s personality, interaction and values. However, our conversation was not so much about 4G itself but about taking a holistic approach and the how’s and why’s of it.

The full piece can be found here and our thanks go out to Rowena Morais and Isabella Chan for bearing with us!

Summary

There is a tension at the heart of our efforts to collaborate. This tension and its possible resolution is best captured by the following questions.

• Should we be putting people first, before technology, in our efforts to collaborate?
• Does collaboration benefit from a more formal process?
• Can collaboration be encouraged in a replicable and systematic manner (as much as anything concerning people can be repeatable and systematic)?
• Does the lack of a formal process for optimising collaboration hold back productivity and performance?

This article attempts to answer these questions and shine new light on what constitutes successful collaboration.

What is collaboration?

At the outset, it is useful to consider what we actually mean when we talk about ‘collaboration’[1]. Wikipedia defines collaboration as “a recursive process where two or more people work together toward an intersection of common goals, for example, an intellectual endeavour that is creative in nature. In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.” By way of contrast, Google offers us 26 possible definitions.

While wanting to avoid any jargon, what is most striking about the various definitions is how frequently the concept of informality is seen as being intrinsic to collaboration. By extension (and certainly from a management perspective), it is this apparent informality that creates a paradox, or at least some significant contrasts around collaboration. The table below illustrates these ideas and the tension between collaborative ways of working and more formal approaches.

Whilst acknowledging that an organisation’s preference is for methods of working that can be most easily measured and managed, the paradox of collaboration lies at the heart of knowing which way of working is most suited to the task at hand. Put another way, it is a case of more control versus less control, more spontaneity versus less, or even greater adoption of change or not. It is these contrasts and inconsistencies lying at the heart of how we choose to organise work that creates an apparent gap or tension in collaboration. This is then especially relevant for those who seek to encourage or promote collaboration within organisations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Summary

By making the traditionally intangible aspects of an organisation tangible, managers can benefit from superior information and greater choice. This new perspective combines insights and knowledge that would previously only have been available by chance alone with a comprehensive view of the organisation in question.

Factors that Drive Intangibles

The recognition and subsequent rise in the importance and value of intangibles has been an ongoing feature of management for some time. Examples such as Knowledge Management, Balanced Scorecards (BSC) and Strategic Planning all attempt to quantify and make tangible aspects of an organisation that are initially intangible in nature.

While there are many examples of tools and techniques to make information more tangible, it is also useful to ask why this trend has been put in motion and what advantages are available from it. The three ideas below are by no means exhaustive, but are an attempt to shed light on the factors that drive the importance of intangibles.

• Economics
• Execution
• Experience

The economic aspect of intangibles looks at two main areas. The first is a broad consensus that intangibles contribute to superior financial performance. Examples include linking activities such as brand valuation, human capital and innovation to increased shareholder returns. A second economic aspect of intangibles looks at increasing efficiency and reducing costs through an improved understanding of intangible costs and the factors of production. Activity based costing is one example of this approach and by better understanding the tangible and intangible costs of production[1], it is possible to generate improvements and efficiencies in resource allocation.

Read the rest of this entry »