2. Rollout
Improving roll out of business strategy
Graham Little
PhD AFNZIM
Foundation book of the redesigning the organization series.
3. 3
Every CEO in company large or small faces two major
problems: First, to select a strategy to sustain the business and
provide adequate returns from the selected market niche. This
is the easy problem for the CEO.
Almost certainly as part of strategy selection the CEO and
key executives will have clear vision of smooth operations
delivering quality product, dynamically marketed and sold and
supported by superb customer service.
The hard problem for the CEO is making it happen.
Rollout describes the state of art scientific and empirically
proven theory of exactly how to achieve perfect roll out of
strategy. Rollout is the foundation book in the Redesigning the
organization series.
Rollout summarizes the foundations of how to build and
operate organizations to roll out strategy and achieve greatest
success.
4. 4
OPD theory a global watershed in HR
“The OPD concept as presented in Rollout is a global
watershed for social science and in particular for the theory
and practice of HR.
HR has the opportunity to embrace this new and exciting
model, to advance the status and impact of HR, and through
the better harnessing of its people to take a huge step forward
in the wealth and hence health of our communities.
HR can lead the way in economic and social development“.
Dr Pieter S. Nel
Professor of Human Resources Management
Unitec New Zealand
Auckland
Professor Extraordinarius, School of Management Sciences,
UNISA, RSA
E mail: pnel@unitec.ac.nz
With OPD the money just turns up
To a new divisional manager…
“Follow OPD advice, identify ideal actions and guide them
being delivered with commitment, the money just turns up.”
Grant Vincent
CEO Hyundai Dealership in Auckland
6. 6
Contents
Why should you read this book? ......................................................11
Get improved results.................................................................... 13
Successful development of a more professional mind.................. 14
Current global state of HR................................................................16
The necessary intellectual complexity of HR theory........................18
The state of social science theory.....................................................21
The tools for creating social science theory................................ 22
The starting question ........................................................................25
Fundamentals of why we do what we do .........................................28
Summary...................................................................................... 28
The brain ..................................................................................... 28
Emotions...................................................................................... 29
Thought........................................................................................ 29
Attention and consciousness........................................................ 29
Mental sets................................................................................... 30
What we ‘see’ depends on our pre-existing ‘personal theories’.. 30
Frames and perception................................................................ 31
What if our personal theory is flawed?........................................ 33
Self, spirit, purpose and meaning ................................................ 33
Freewill and choice..................................................................... 35
Self responsibility ........................................................................ 35
The analysis of causality and why the team leader-team member
relationship is critical to organisation and personal success ............37
Causality...................................................................................... 37
Understanding the mechanism in teams...................................... 41
Applying causal understanding in teams..................................... 43
The search for ‘final’ cause is an infinite regress ....................... 45
Summary of causal understanding in teams and the professional
frame of mind .................................................................................... 47
7. 7
“I am a practical manager, why should I bother with this sort of
intellectual stuff?” ............................................................................48
A brief look at OPD basic theory .....................................................51
Ideal actions underlie every goal ................................................ 51
The goal cascade builds the organization role structure............. 51
Ideal actions are a key leadership judgment ............................... 52
Leadership effectiveness is how well the team leader guides
delivery of agreed ideal actions ........................................................ 52
Definition of design specification, paradigm, and social technology
..........................................................................................................55
There is nothing more useful than and a good theory ................. 57
Understanding design specifications ................................................58
Example of engineering design specifications............................. 58
A design specification implicitly carries the background
technology of the day ........................................................................ 59
A design specification leads to a paradigm but is not itself the
paradigm........................................................................................... 60
Changing the design specification typically creates resistance... 60
Conflict of paradigms between individuals ................................. 61
Conflict of paradigms within the individual ................................ 62
Improving the design elements of a flawed design specification
will not fix the flaw............................................................................ 62
Understanding organization design specifications...................... 62
Current organization and HR models are based on a flawed design
specification......................................................................................66
The OPD theory is a superior organization design specification .....68
Summary of alternative organization design specifications ........ 69
The OPD theory of organization design and leadership...................70
Diagram of the OPD theory of strategy rollout........................... 73
The OPD paradigm used in practice........................................... 74
Definition of strategic HR management (SHRM)........................ 77
8. 8
Monitoring and corporate management of the SHRM processes 78
Quantification of the impact of improved staff performance on the
results................................................................................................ 79
Detailed definition of perfect human performance...................... 80
Further comment on 100% human performance......................... 82
What has this to do with the governance of human performance?...84
The directors need select the organization design specification . 84
Major organizational redesign must be driven from the top ....... 85
All management processes must have integrity with the design
specification ...................................................................................... 86
The HR department becomes the crucial driver of results .......... 86
HR becomes a route for training as a CEO................................. 87
OPD theory from CEO point of view...............................................88
Role of HR ................................................................................... 89
Leadership judgment and leadership effectiveness...................... 89
Some key changes in management terminology ..............................91
Financial payback from OPD strategic HR......................................97
Normalisation of OPD profit profile link (OPDPPL).................. 99
The link between ideal actions and the profit and loss.............. 101
The link between actual behavior and ideal actions.................. 102
Using visualization of perfect human performance to assess actual
human performance ........................................................................ 103
The OPD profit improvement factor (OPDPIF)........................ 104
Improved profits from improved strategic management of human
performance .................................................................................... 104
Case study: If it works in one mind it will work in any number 105
The definition of human capital......................................................108
Defining the human capital question to be addressed............... 108
Definition of human capital value in OPD theory..................... 109
Fixed or standing human capital value ..................................... 110
Dynamic human capital value................................................... 111
9. 9
Using OPD-SHRMIS statistics to gauge likely profit performance
........................................................................................................ 112
Measuring the ROI on HR expenditure..........................................114
The team climate or team cultural audit.................................... 118
Graphing team climate or cultural audit results ....................... 120
The audit graph reflects the resilience of team performance .... 121
The financial impact of high resilience ..................................... 122
Normalization of cultural team audit scores against the profit and
loss .................................................................................................. 123
The ROI of HR in OPD theory................................................... 125
The OPD-SHRMIS system......................................................... 126
Predicting the future stability of current profitability ............... 127
Build or lease............................................................................. 127
Professionalism...............................................................................129
Building the focus on performance............................................ 129
Implementation: Redesigning the organization..............................131
Key benchmarks of implementation........................................... 131
The behavioral management process ........................................ 133
Engagement, motivation and link between a role and the person ..134
Hertzberg hygiene and motivator factors.................................. 134
Building the hygiene framework................................................ 135
The motivation factors............................................................... 137
Flow........................................................................................... 138
An integrated motivation strategy ............................................. 139
‘Good job today’........................................................................ 139
Engagement............................................................................... 140
Definition of engagement within OPD theory ........................... 142
The emotional structure of work................................................ 146
Awareness in the role ................................................................ 147
The impact of work satisfaction................................................. 147
The organization culture ........................................................... 148
10. 10
The organization mission........................................................... 148
The organization values ............................................................ 149
Why does OPD theory get applied? ...............................................151
Learning experience.................................................................. 151
Emergent corporate ethics ..............................................................155
The behavioral structure of society ........................................... 156
Finding fairness and equality in wealth distribution................. 157
Wages, salaries and expenses not profits .................................. 158
The relationships embedded in OPD theory.............................. 159
Modern corporate ethics ........................................................... 160
The problem of ethical governance ........................................... 162
Conclusion......................................................................................170
Appendix ........................................................................................171
Scoping the research task.......................................................... 171
The process to be applied in seeking a solution ........................ 172
Testimonial on OPD theory............................................................174
Academic background ............................................................... 176
Author’s comments.................................................................... 177
Introduction to the redesign of the organization book series .... 178
References and notes......................................................................182
Format note: The electronic up load does not readily support symbols; therefore
in the diagrams of ultimate and immediate effects the arrow is replaced by the word
and signs e.g. -effects-
11. 11
Why should you read this book?
You need read this book for two reasons, first, it does the
work for you and details the leadership derived from a new
way of thinking of how to get best staff performance; it also
provides insight into the sort of social science technology a
manager needs if he or she is to avoid being conned into the
sort of intellectual acquiescence that contributed to the global
financial crash of 2008.
Second, the application of the system achieves consistent,
reproducible results greater than any other system yet devised
or available.
Business success rests on two things, first the selection of an
apt strategy that places the business in a market situation that
will enable the results; second, the effective roll out of strategy.
Both these are the responsibility of the CEO. The best written
strategic plan is just so much paper weight unless someone
does the actions consistent with the plan. In any sized
organization the fundamental is that nothing happens unless
someone does it. We now have the obvious; strategy can only
be rolled out through people.
Some years ago I had a golf coach who stressed that practice
does not make perfect only perfect practice makes perfect. I
was never good at golf; do not have the hand-eye coordination.
But the message did stick. It is not good enough to have
people ‘sort of/kind of’ doing the things needed to implement
strategy, to achieve perfect delivery of strategy then what
people do needs to be perfect in relation to strategy.
Is this concept possible? That is, is it possible to visualize
perfect strategy, perfectly rolled out?
12. 12
Imagine a good social golfer, they can hit the perfect shot
from time to time, professionals do it more often. So ‘yes’ the
concept of ‘perfect performance’ is possible. Rollout outlines
the theory of organizations and of the relationship the
organization needs to make with people such that it is possible
to have perfect delivery of strategy.
Definition of perfect rollout delivering sustainable
perfect results
Leadership judgment: Perfect judgment of strategy,
cascaded through perfectly judged organization
structure, then ideal actions perfectly identified
relative to each key performance indicator in every
organization role.
Leadership effectiveness: Perfect delivery of ideal
actions by each person.
The premise is that perfect implementation of any strategy
will greatly increase the results arising from that strategy. The
governance of any organization that selects and implements the
OPD theory of organization design will enjoy greatly increased
and more sustainable results, with greater profit resilience and
faster turnaround from normal economic downturns.
In unraveling the new organization theory human resources
emerges as the fundamental and primary driver of strategy.
There is no theory of how to get top staff performance that
has lasted which means there were none that were right. To
13. 13
enable the vision of perfect strategy perfectly rolled out it is
necessary to examine the very basics of organization design
and understanding, which in turn forced consideration of
fundamental issues in social science. Tackling the issues of
engagement and performance from a thoroughly scientific
point of view makes Rollout a more intellectually challenging
book than perhaps typical of popular management books.
Get improved results
Rollout outlines the process of engaging people in strategy
in such a way as to have perfect strategic rollout as a realistic
achievable goal.
We know that if we choose, we can get better results by
trying and concentrating harder. The OPD theory gets better
results because it works through the mind of each team
member. And because it works through each mind it needs
only to be proved in one mind.
It has now been proved in the minds of many people in
business that if they choose they can get improved results such
as:
1. A food manufacturing business increased sales gross
profit by 5% in ten months.
2. A retail electrical chain increased profit by 22% in eight
months.
3. A motor vehicle dealership (one of the first clients been
on system four years) increased profits to double the
accepted industry standard of ‘very good’. The CEO
opened two other branches, become preoccupied and
profit slipped from the peak to 25% above industry
14. 14
standard. He is now refocused and results are expected
to return to previous levels over next months.
4. A small foundry business (20 staff) lifted gross profit
from 42% to 58% in fifteen months.
Results have proved resilient and stable provided leadership
focus remains on refinement and delivery of ideal actions.
Successful development of a more professional mind
Peter was a sales manager of a sales team of eight. One of
the better sales staff, Matt, frequently did not complete the
paper work on time or accurately which was a major frustration
to Peter. Matt and Peter had had several tense discussions over
the administration and support processes expected of sales
people, but these had no impact, and if anything had deepened
Matt’s resistance.
The OPD-SHRM system was introduced into the team.
Peter discussed the case of Matt, and decided to follow the
process exactly as suggested.
Peter began the one-on-one session with Matt during which
they covered the notion of success in the sales role, what that
entailed, why it entailed what it did, etc. the discussions were
not about Matt, but about what was needed in the role if
someone was to succeed in the role. The role and what was
needed was approached rationally, objectively, calmly. Matt
was forced to agree there were quite important aspects that he
was not doing to a reasonable standard.
Discussions were held ever two weeks. After five meetings
Peter approached the consultant and stated it was remarkable
the change in Matt who was doing most of what was needed
15. 15
without seemingly realizing he had changed. Peter said Matt
was far from perfect, but that he, Peter could live with the
performance as it was and Matt was now the best sales person
in the group.
16. 16
Current global state of HR
Julius Caesar was a powerful leader. Do we know more
about leadership today than he understood? Certainly today we
have systematized knowledge on leadership with books and
courses, but do we really know more than Caesar…are we
better leaders than Caesar?
Today we need many, many leaders throughout our
organizations not just the one great leader at the top. Today
with distribution of knowledge about leadership we have a
greater percentage of people in our communities at the standard
set by Caesar, so we have solved one problem. But I remain
unconvinced people today are better leaders than Caesar. The
problem is not dissemination of insight into leadership, but the
conceptualization of the structure of leadership converted into
definite HR processes for every team leader throughout the
organization, since results are not driven from the top, but from
the bottom.
In all organizations human performance is a crucial strategic
factor in results. But HR is frequently seen as a cost based
compliance driven function, and is not seen as an equal
contributor to organization success1
.
Global HR best practice as currently conceived has provided
unquestionable improvements, but can more be done? Research
shows a number of problems for example: Team leaders find
HR an admin chore that does not add value. HR activities are
delivered in uncoordinated silos as “latest new initiative” with
limited long term, sustainable results. Once team leaders lift
‘foot off the pedal’ performance slips back and plateaus.
17. 17
Much lip service is given to ‘leadership’, and there is a
strong view (83%) that leadership is important and that
improved leadership effort will get a better result. Surveys2
have shown that only 74% of team leaders think that the
current HR processes will in fact deliver improved team
results, but even they, despite offering positive survey results,
were not fully committed, for example to doing the annual
performance appraisal, and when interviewed individually in
fact hold mixed views as to its usefulness in improving team
results.
Why…?
With the extent and depth of HR research, beginning with
Hawthorn experiments early in the 20th
century, why do we
have these persistent problems, why have the issues not been
resolved, why don’t we have better theory3
?
18. 18
The necessary intellectual complexity of HR
theory
HR deals with people. To understand people we need
understand mind. At very least have a general theory of
psychology that includes the resolution of the body-mind
problem. If not, there is left the likelihood that an eventual
solution to the body-mind problem, or an eventual general
theory of psychology could impact and alter or invalidate the
HR solution. To maintain intellectual integrity, if we do not
resolve prior issues that could impact any solution, then we
need state that4
‘… in the absence of a theory of psychology
any HR solution is offered as speculation subject to an eventual
general theory of psychology that may or may not support the
HR solution’.
I am not interested in speculation. I am only interested in a
HR solution that is of the status of scientific theory, therefore
all underlying issues must be resolved and considered in
relation to the HR solution, then and only then will we have a
HR theory that will last and be reproducible and consistent.
If a general theory of psychology is to be causal then what is
causality? How do we understand it in relation to our theory of
HR? We are now very deep into complex issues involving the
foundations of science itself yet there are direct links to a
theory of HR and if none of these deeper issues are resolved
then we must preface our theory of HR with a statement that
declares fully the intellectual limitations5
.
Further epistemological analysis concludes that to create a
theory we need conceptualization tools so we know and
19. 19
understand the theories we build. Such tools are used and
understood in physics6
, but mathematics does not work in
social science, so how do we build theory in social science
such that we know and understand exactly the
conceptualization process?
Professor Pieter Nel Professor of HR at Unitec in Auckland
developed the following diagram to illustrate the extent that
developing sustainable theory in HR as opposed the models
requires interaction with almost all other social science
disciplines.
20. 20
Interrelationship of the disciplines impacting on human
resource management7
For these reasons a theory of HR to meet the qualities
sought of a solution must be built on foundations thoroughly
grounded in a new formulation of social science.
Human
resources
management
Management and
business
processes
Organisatio
n behaviour
Sociolog
y
Social
psychology
Psychology
Political
science Anthropology
21. 21
The state of social science theory
Theoretical physics is a respected discipline, yet theoretical
social science is almost a joke. Why?
In my analysis of this problem I concluded there were two
key issues, first was the demand for any intellectual endeavour
to be grounded on what has gone before. The result is my
strategic rule for science that any topic could only be discussed
within the bounds of prior understanding in relation to issues
relevant to the topic. For example, to discuss motivation in
business there has to be a stated and agreed general theory of
psychology within which there is a general theory of
motivation then motivation in a business is only a detail within
the broader theoretical structure.
The rule is first things must be done first. Far too often this
rule is ignored. Speculation is defined as any statement on any
issue that is not grounded in all that has gone before and where
the first things have not been done first. Speculation is not
acceptable, and is not science, rather it is science fiction8
.
The second issue was the lack of tools to guide and lead our
conceptualization efforts to create theory. In physics the tool
used is mathematics, but in social science this does not work
well, so we needed other tools able to guide the
conceptualization process. After some significant research I
selected the cybernetic tools of W. Ross Ashby supported by
my own analysis of variables as conceptual abstracts from
perceptual fields: Variables as the conceptualization of
mechanisms.
The discipline of first things first, variables and the tools of
Ashby create a system of theoretical social science.
22. 22
Proof of the OPD theory then implies that the process of its
creation is valid and we move toward a theoretical social
science to match the depth and power of theoretical physics.
The tools for creating social science theory
You would not go to catch fish with a paint brush. The right
tools are crucial to do a good job including social science
theory creation.
The use of variables9
and application of the principle of
primary operations and immediate and ultimate affects by W
Ross Ashby10
enables conceptualisation of the mechanism of
any system11
.
1. Variables are the concepts used in describing the
working of any system. It is the interaction of variables
that converts inputs into outputs. Variables are then our
conceptualisation of the mechanisms of the system. In
the first instance we create a descriptive explanation of
the system; then by extending the conceptualization
using Ashby’s immediate and ultimate affects and the
relation ship between the two we build a causal
explanation of the system. There is no a priori method of
determining the variables that need used to describe a
system. Variables selection to describe the operation of
any system is the result of conceptual analysis and trial
and error.
2. Primary operations is producing a perturbation in one
variable and then watching the order in which variables
are impacted.
23. 23
3. If two variables A, B, so that when A changes B changes
then we can say A-affects-B, and describe this as an
ultimate effect.
4. Then with research we uncover variable C, such that A-
affects-C-affects-B, then A-affects-C and C-affects-B
are the immediate affects underlying A-affects-B.
5. The relation between variables A-affects-B is then the
descriptive explanation of the system, while A-affects-
C-affects-B is the causal explanation relative to A-
affects-B.
6. Any causal explanation must stand in relation to a
descriptive explanation and is the conceptualization of
the mechanism of how the change in the system occurs,
and is described as cause.
7. The tools provide direction of communication between
variables and do not necessarily describe the mechanism
of the communication channel. This is especially crucial
understanding when dealing with situations where all we
have are the variables and their linkages.
There are many properties of the knowledge created using
these tools12
, and I will not explore them here, except one.
Imagine two variables, one a valve, called V, another a
pressure gauge, called P. Now we know that the link is V-
affects-P, so that the position of the valve causes changes in the
pressure. Given this information can we gain some insight into
the system?
The system is a pressure cooker, when the valve is opened
the pressure drops, and vice versa. The crucial point is that
using our tools to conceptualize the system gave us the control
24. 24
in the system as V-affects-P, but the movement of mass and
energy is opposite to the perceived control.
To further grasp the point of communication and
complexity, imagine a TV, and the relationship between the
position of the knob and the volume. The knob K alters the
volume V, but we know the mechanisms are very complex.
Similarly, imagine the position of the accelerator pedal, and the
speed of the front wheels of a motor vehicle. Again immense
complexity, all boiled down into a relationship between
variables which describes the control between those variables.
It states there is a communication channel, but does not
necessarily tell us the nature of that channel.
If it is so easy to create complexity in what are known and
quite simple physical systems then imagine the caution we
need when faced with very complex and interactive social
situations where all we may have is a few variables and their
linkages13
.
25. 25
The starting question
Ask a child what they want to eat and the answer is any
guess. Ask a child if they want an ice cream, and the answer
will be yes or no…likely yes.
The answer depends on the question.
It is easy to ask inept questions in HR, for example from one
such ‘leadership book’14
:
1. How do people feel about being led?
2. How do leaders feel about their leadership?
3. How do these contribute to organizational outcomes?
It was also stated that these questions are at the heart of
organizational success.
The approach above is quite typical. There are several levels
of failure in such questions. Foremost is the assumption that
the focus on people and their feelings will eventually resolve
any shortfalls in the performance of the organization. Who
ultimately is accountable for our personal performance at
work? Should the team leader or governance be concerned if
we do or do not want to lead or be led? Should team leaders sit
about having heart to heart counseling type sessions with
people over their deeper feelings and the meaning of results to
them?
A great New Zealand sportsman, Brad Thorn, said ‘I hate
training, but it’s what you do’. He was regarded as one of the
hardest workers at training by all who knew him in his decade
career as one of the best forwards in the World Champion New
Zealand All Black Rugby team. I shared these thoughts over a
26. 26
wine with friend Shane Hales, a New Zealand rock singer from
the seventies and eighties whose career in New Zealand is
having a revival, he looked away reflective and said ‘I hate
rehearsals, but it is what you do’. I think all performance
orientated people would agree the sentiments and most would
add that time spent in practice is directly proportional to the
level of success.
Performance, it is what you do; it is not what someone else
makes you do or can talk you into doing. The only person with
access to your mind is you, if performance starts in your mind,
and you abdicate disciplined management of your mind then do
not be surprised if the performance is weak, and while other
people need treat you with respect, eventually it is you and
only you with access to the one ‘device’ that can shape and
define your performance, your mind.
This leaves the key issue of the starting question. And
highlights how careful we need to be otherwise we get trapped
into lines of thinking that are unproductive.
Some years ago Manchester United Football team were
wiped out in a plane crash in Europe. But the club kept going.
So what was it that kept going? All the people dead, but the
club continues; it follows that the people are not the club which
in some way is separate from people. This leads to the
ontological question of organizations, what are they, do they
exist and if so how? I will not consider the depth of intellectual
argument needed to finally answer this question, but merely
say ‘an organisation is separate from people and is an idea that
influences human mood and conduct15
’.
27. 27
If we begin with the proposition that the organisation is
separate from people, then there must be a link between the
organization and people, and specifically between the
organization and people’s minds. Further given that strategy
drives an organization, then there needs to be a link between
the three, namely strategy, the organization and people’s
minds.
Hence we have the starting question: ‘What exactly are the
causal links between staff behavior and the organization
strategy?’
28. 28
Fundamentals of why we do what we do16
This summary is a crucial part of doing first things first in
relation to answering the starting question with sound theory
not with speculation.
The general theory of psychology was derived by applying
the tools for theory creation to system ‘person in their
environment’17
. The importance of this summary is as the
backdrop to discussions throughout in the book, including
‘professionalism’, ‘motivation’, ‘frames’ etc, and also as the
fundamental structure in the link between strategy and staff
behaviour.
Summary
Human conduct is understood as a consequence of the
resolution of the tension between entropy and free will18
. All
behaviour and emotions are driven by the brain. Through the
attention mechanism the mind can intervene in the brain to
direct neural flows into pathways of choice.
The brain
The human brain is a physical device driven by the tendency
to seek the lowest level energy states available to it. This
tendency is referred to as ‘entropy’19
. Left to its own devices
the brain will follow the paths of lowest energy (entropy)
which will result in habit20
.
The brain is the mechanism21
of mind, and the mind
experiences the consequences of the brain, such experience of
thought driven by the brain is not causal in conduct, but the
person may believe it is.
29. 29
Emotions
Emotions shape mood and conduct. Emotions may arise
with ideas, and circumstances, or may arise within us without
us necessarily knowing exactly the underlying source,
Thought
At the centre of our daily existence is what we think22
.
Ideas23
or thought are causal and shape mood and conduct24
.
The process of conceptualization25
creates ideas which are
defined as events26
grouped according to their properties27
.
Thought is defined as ideas expressed in language available
to attention. For example an intuition that something is not
right is a feeling until it is made clear by being able to be
expressed as a thought.
There are no categories of thought. Beliefs and values are
thought associated with differing levels of emotion and
integrated into habit to differing degrees.
Attitude is the ‘slant’ given a thought, sometimes emotional
when it is like a belief, for example always seeing the glass
half empty is a manner of attitude one may call negative, but
not usually called a belief. Whereas thinking all woman are
fragile and weak is also an attitude, but could be classified as a
belief28
.
Attention and consciousness
A process in our mind is ‘attention’ able to intervene into
the brain to cause neural states to occur that if the brain is left
to its own internal mechanisms would not otherwise
occur. This is called choice29
or free will.
30. 30
Ideas expressed in language plus the attention mechanism
result in consciousness.
Mental sets
Technically thought and emotions are linked in mental
sets30
, the complete system of mental sets within us being our
psyche.
A single mental set is not complex to understand, but our
psyche likely consists of many, many thousands of mental sets,
some linked some not. The scale of our psyche makes it
difficult to understand even for us from the inside. This scale
and complexity of our psyche also enables feeling and conduct
that may even surprise us, coming from mental sets that we
may not have fully appreciated within us.
What we ‘see’ depends on our pre-existing ‘personal
theories’
In 197831
two researchers asked 50 people to view a house
with the intent of buying it, they then asked 50 other people to
view the same house with the intent of burgling it. They placed
each group in a separate room and asked them to write down
everything they could recall about the house. The participants
produced lists so different you would not recognize they had
seen the same house.
Our personal theories or conceptual templates32
(the ‘buys
and burgles’) completely orientate us to the circumstances
directing decision making and all subsequent conduct. This
illustration gives scientific force to the De Bono approach of
putting on different ‘hats’, with a ‘hat’ being a different way of
seeing or a different personal theory or model or viewpoint.
31. 31
We see with our mind not with our eyes.
If we are emotionally committed to our existing model, our
mind is then closed, and we will struggle to see options and
alternatives in front of us.
Frames and perception
The full range of our thought available to attention is called
our world view broken into mental sets. This concept is
typically too broad to be of practical use in discussing why we
do what we do. For simplicity and convenience we can
understand how we ‘see’ as organized onto ‘frames’33
with
what is on a frame as our personal ‘view’, ‘model’, ‘theory’,
‘cognitive structure’, etc.
To understand ‘personal theories on frames’ imagine a box
of transparencies as frames, in the front of one’s mind and at a
thought up comes – say – buy, and so we see the world through
that set of eyes. Then change the ‘frame’ and up comes burgle
so we see the world thorough that set of eyes - but it is a
completely different world and we see things we cannot see
and will never see with just ‘buy’. What is significant is the
degree of influence of the thought completely dominating
perception.
We can then understand a mental set as a frame with linked
emotions, and what is on the frame has a ‘slant’ we can refer to
as our attitude. We can simply understand our psychology by
thinking of ‘frames’, each frame containing thoughts, or ideas
or our personal theory. The frame is the structure of our
psychology; the thought defines who we are. (‘Buy’ or ‘burgle’
are separate personal theories on frames relative to a house).
32. 32
A personal theory is of the same psychological status as a
scientific theory, it is just that a scientific theory is assessed
using more rigorous standards34
.
If we sharpen our thinking - improve our personal theories -
we can get a better result which leads to the comment: There is
nothing more useful than a good theory35
.
Frames have emotions attached to them. It is the attached
emotion gives the thought ‘attitude’ or makes it a value or a
belief.
Frames can be nested, and linked, so that we can begin with
one thought, and then have that slide us to another. For
example, thinking of food and having our mind slide to our
favourite food that may or may not be good for our weight.
Where frames are nested, then the highest frame in the nest
is said to be the frame of reference. The frame of reference sets
the emotional tone in all nested frames.
We can change what is on a frame. If we improve our
personal theories we enable us to act more effectively in those
circumstances relevant to the personal theory.
When we change what is on a frame, the old frame is still
intact, the mind is not a computer, it does not overwrite ideas,
we do not un-think ideas or delete them; the mind adds a new
frame. This means that while we may choose a new idea the
old idea may still be active as habit. It is this process in our
brain that means merely by working through an idea does not
mean it will become the manner in which we instinctively act.
We need think through the idea as it is to be expressed in
action and then monitor and discipline ourselves until the new
idea is consolidated as habit.
33. 33
What if our personal theory is flawed?
What will happen if some part of our world view, our model
or personal theory is flawed? Merely trying harder cannot
overcome deficiencies implicit in the very thinking we are
using to orientate ourselves. Trying harder may improve things
for a while, but inevitably if maintaining the extra performance
requires an unbalanced effort, then once balance restored the
results will fall to the level the model is intrinsically able to
deliver.
If the personal theory is flawed we need change the theory.
If the personal theory is what we do and how we ‘see’, how
will we know if or when it is flawed? It is a fight to keep our
minds open, vigilance is the only answer: Our personal fight to
retain an open mind and our personal effort to constantly
educate ourselves through reflection on experience.
Self, spirit, purpose and meaning
Our ‘self’ is as much an ‘object’ in our world view as a tree
or photon36
. The only ‘privilege’ we may have is that we are
privy to knowledge of ourselves not known to anyone else37
,
but it is knowledge and in itself it is not special, merely
internal38
. We can only know ourselves as an object in our
thoughts; hence self-esteem is what we think of ourselves.
Similarly our ‘spirit’ is a core of our psyche, consisting of
typically very private parts of our psyche sometimes not fully
conscious merely experienced as feeling39
.
Spirituality is the sense of our own existence at the centre of
our psychology. Our behaviour will lack commitment and
resilience if we are not at spiritual peace with our choices.
34. 34
For example, tasks tend to have an intrinsic emotional
component; writing requires starting with a blank page and
filling it, whereas reception work requires managing work
coming at you and seldom if ever is there the demand to create
work or ideas. These circumstances have very different
emotional demands, if we aim to act out one or other and in our
core emotional structures we are not at peace with the
emotional demand, then we are likely to not do it very well, nor
feel comfortable doing it.
I refer to as our spirit as the deeper sense of who we are and
what we like and do not like. We can better manage ourselves
if we take the time to conceptualise our spirit as the core of self
esteem. Also, if we conceptualize how our spirit is expressed
within us independent of our daily thoughts.
We, all aspects of ourselves, are knowledge to us like any
other knowledge. We can now have our ‘spirit’ conceptualised
on a frame, independent of all other thoughts we may have. I
refer to our spirit conceptualised in this way as the ‘I of I’
where we exist and be, without thought, for me an image of a
lake, with emotions of silence and gentle stillness. So at all
times ‘I’ spiritually exist as part of ‘me’ independent of ‘what I
currently think’. Then it follows ‘I’, the active ‘I’, as living in
the world via what I currently think.
Therefore if what I currently think does not work very well
for me under some circumstance, then I can change the ideas
without threat that ‘I of I’ has to change. I am only changing
how I am currently expressed in the world with the intention of
ensuring I feel better about how I express myself and so I am
more fulfilled.
35. 35
Energy arises from our spirit expressing itself though our
thought in mind and so defines us in the world.
Freewill and choice
Freewill entails choice40
and is the function of our attention
mechanism. Choice embraces personal and social freedom.
Free will is only exercised by active application of attention
to intervene in our brains to achieve neural flows that otherwise
will not occur, hence the exercise of freewill requires energy
and it is only by the application of that energy can we thwart
entropy. I summarize this proposition in the comment: Only
consciousness can make water go up hill41
.
Self responsibility
Only the individual has access to their mind42
, and it is only
the individual who can intervene in their own mind. We are
fully accountable for our mind and hence the conduct that it
enables. To achieve sustainable changes in behaviour we need
create the structures in mind.
Conscious awareness is dominated by our world view itself
segregated into mental sets where Thought and emotion are
linked to environmental situations and/or to imagined
situations43
.
To translate a new idea into behaviour we must ensure
disciplined attention to the new idea and its behavioral
consequences until the new neural pathways are of lower
energy than the old. It is possible the new ideas may never
develop lower energy pathways than alternatives, and the new
ideas may always require effort (“I hate training but it is what
you do!”). This is self-discipline relative to our choices.
36. 36
Every person is responsible for the operation of their mind
and therefore need accept the behavioral consequences arising
from their mind and exercised via their brain. A consequence
in business training technological is an emphasis on developing
emotional intelligence to enable balance and objectivity.
We are unlikely to commit with resolve unless we choose
the path and can see it clearly, accept the consequences, and we
are at spiritual peace with our choice. Such choices position us
for ‘flow44
’.
37. 37
The analysis of causality and why the team
leader-team member relationship is critical
to organisation and personal success
Team performance is crucial in organizational success.
Senior leadership set the direction and maintains performance
pressure, but delivery of numbers is done at the work level.
Typically, numbers are won or lost on the ‘shop floor’. The
first line supervisors/team leader is crucial for achieving
greatest results with the influence of the team leader well
established45
.
Why? Why are team leaders so important?
It is easy to see why team leaders are important in their
relationship proximity to the team members, but is there a more
fundamental issue? If we understand that issue can we then
design better team leader inputs into the team so that they are
more effective and more efficient in their leadership efforts?
To understand fully ‘why’ we must examine the
mechanisms of what happens in groups.
Causality46
All systems exhibit outputs resulting from the operation of
the internal mechanism47
within the system. Operation of the
internal mechanism relative to an input is called necessity.
The figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship between
internal mechanisms, necessity, theory creation tools and
cause.
38. 38
Conceptualisation of the internal mechanism in a system in
relation to the outputs is cause48
. Cause is not necessity it is our
conceptualisation of the mechanisms hence is our
conceptualisation or understanding of necessity.
Output of any system relative to an
input depends on internal mechanisms
of the system processing the input.
Figure 1: Necessity as the internal mechanisms of a system
Input Output
Mechanism = necessity
39. 39
This separation of cause and necessity is unique to this
analysis. The proposition arising from this analysis is that any
theory is causal if and only if the internal mechanisms of the
system are identified in understanding the outputs49
. If a theory
is not causal then we have no choice but to resort to statistics to
predict and analyze the data.
For example, we fully expect the sun to rise and set
tomorrow, this is called causal expectation and as analyzed by
the Scottish philosopher David Hume around 1750 it does not
justify us expecting it to always be so. Because we saw it
happen yesterday is no good reason for assuming it will again
tomorrow.
The tools enable
conceptualization of
the mechanism of
the system.
Figure 2: cause is the conceptualization of necessity
Input
Mechanism=necessity.
Cause is conceptualization of mechanism which is
our understanding of necessity.
Proposition: A theory is causal if and only if it
identifies the mechanisms.
Output
40. 40
From figure 1 we can understand the solar system as a set of
mechanisms that produce the inputs and outputs we see, sun
rises and sets. We do not know what those mechanisms are, but
we know they must exist, and the sun rising and setting is due
the internal mechanisms of the solar system.
Every system we can think of is the same; it has within it its
own internal necessity, the mechanism by which it goes tick
tock, tick tock...
Now, we apply tools of physics and astronomy, and we
arrive at gravity, nature of the sun, nature of movement of
planets etc. What we have now is a conceptual analysis of the
mechanisms. But our conceptual analysis is NOT the
mechanism; it is our knowledge of the mechanisms. And
under the terminology used here it is called cause which is not
necessity but our understanding of mechanisms and necessity.
Going from figure 1 to figure 2 is to go from the
fundamental of the universe, mechanism processing inputs to
produce outputs (figure 1); to conceptualization of those
mechanisms into diagrams and equations and descriptions
whereby we can explain why this input results in this output
(figure 2).
Figure 1 represents how we must ‘see’ the universe. We
then seek explanation, which gives rise to figure 2, our
understanding of the universe. In much earlier times people
gave thanks to the gods for rain and sun… their explanation at
that time for the ‘mechanism’ of the box called weather.
Today, we have different explanations that serve the same
psychological purpose.
41. 41
Now why is all this important? Because without this
understanding we are no more than ancient people praying to
some gods to ensure the mechanism of some system fall is in
our favor. The state of global understanding of social science
and of HR, leadership and organizations in particular is in a
poor conceptual and intellectual state, leaving us with tools and
levers that do not directly impact the mechanism of group
action therefore do not have reproducible and consistent
results.
Understanding the mechanism in teams
No one in right mind would try to build a house from the
roof down. No business person of sound judgment would sign
off on a business plan for a product without analysis of the
market, competition, customer preferences, likely pricing,
capital needed and gross margin, etc.
This principle, of ‘first things have to be done first’50
is
equally applicable to intellectual endeavor. For example, if one
seeks a general theory of say, psychology and one wants it to
be reproducible, and hence causal, then there has to be a theory
of cause and to identify the mechanisms in the system [person
interacting with their environment] there has to be
understanding of the tools being used in theory creation. If we
do not do these first things first, then we are left with the
potential for example, that should someone come after us and
develop a theory of cause that could alter all our work.
Technically ‘first things first’ is stated: Discussion on
any topic must be bounded by what is known of the prior
issues that are able to impact the topic.
42. 42
The starting question is what exactly is the link between staff
behavior and organization strategy? The first two prior issues
relative to the starting question are resolved, namely
identifying tools enabling systematic theory creation51
, and the
analysis of causality via the tools. The third prior issue is the
understanding of the mechanisms that result in response of a
team.
Imagine viewing ruins of houses and circumstances of some
ancient civilization. If we return to the ruins in a year, or 100
years they will be unchanged other than obvious physical
decay.
Are ruins the civilization? Obviously not: So, what is
needed for a civilization to dynamically exist? What is it that
makes ruins ‘living’, or conversely, what is it that is missing in
ruins that makes them ‘dead’ in the sense they are unchanging
in every way other than physical decay.
Now, imagine walking into a room, there are cups and plates
scattered about, seats in a semi circle, two white boards filled
with notes; scraps of paper with more notes and four groups of
five chairs arranged away from the main group of chairs and
well separated from each other about the room.
We can surmise there was some form of group workshop,
and from the notes we may even surmise what the workshop
was about. If we leave the room overnight and return in the
morning, then the room will be as we left it, no living actions
will have altered the features in the room.
The group room is to the group as ruins are to the
civilization; both are the remnants of dynamic causality of the
43. 43
living; both are missing people engaged and active in the
processes implied and relevant to remnants.
The remnants of the group activity are part of the group
outputs; there are other outputs in terms of what members of
the group carried with them in their minds relative to the
activity. For ruins and for a workshop room, then the outputs
that continue in the minds of the members can be referred to as
‘cultural’, so now we have two types of output, physical
remnants and cultural outputs carried forward in the mind of
those participating52
.
These arguments mean that the mechanisms of team/group
outputs are via the individual mind. A theory of teams requires
a causal understanding of psychology. Hence the earlier section
on why individuals do what they do.
Applying causal understanding in teams
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the different processes and how
they impact the ‘group internal mechanisms’ (P is for person,
and +, -, & 0 for the impact positive, negative or neutral).
Figure 3 is for a group input. Figure 4 is where each person
in the group is addressed individually.
The solution is obvious, namely that one-on-one interaction
is more effective than group inputs. However, with the analysis
of cause we have gone beyond our opinion that one-on-one is
more effective and can concretely demonstrate why that is
causally so.
44. 44
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Figure 3: statistical impact on a group
Group
input:
talks,
newsletters
, etc
1. Net group impact +1.5.
2. Outputs only statistical.
3. Doesn’t engage group internal mechanisms.
P1 +
P2 -
P3 0
P4 +
P5 0.5
Individual
input into each
mind
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Outputs
P1 +
P2 +
P3 +
P4 +
P5 +
Figure 4: Causal impact on a group
1. Net group impact +5.0.
2. Outputs able to be considered causally.
3. Directly engages the group internal mechanisms.
Results only
45. 45
Any group wide phenomenon that appears to have group
wide impact is merely a ‘shotgun’ scatter into the group with
take up via some percentage of individual minds in the group53
(figure 3).
All social causality is via the individual mind54
(figurer 4)
and any form of group development via the mind of each
person will be much more effective than group events.
All success begins in our mind. The team leader is crucial since
it is only the team leader who can build the relationship with
each team member such as to be able to influence the team
member’s mind.
The analysis of cause in social systems means that it is
much more effective for a team leader to interact directly with
every team member in the performance of the tasks assigned
the team member.
The search for ‘final’ cause is an infinite regress
Imagine a box, call it box1; we know it is the internal
mechanisms of box1 that turns inputs into outputs. Now,
imagine we conceptualized the mechanisms of box1 to produce
causal understanding of what happens. What do we have?
Conceptualization of the mechanism produces a lot of linked
smaller boxes inside the box1, with each smaller box having an
input converted by its internal mechanisms to an output.
Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box1, call it
box2, and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box2,
what do we get? Conceptualization of the mechanism produces
a lot of linked smaller boxes inside the box2, with each smaller
box having an input converted by its internal mechanisms to an
output.
46. 46
Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box2, call it
box3, and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box3,
what do we get? …etc, to infinity.
The question is whether or not there is ever any level of
‘box’ that has no internal mechanism? So then we have the
‘final and ultimate box’. There could be such an ‘ultimate box’,
but this is a huge decision, to date, all of human intellectual
history has always uncovered the internal mechanisms of every
‘box’ we have ever created and then discovered that the
internal mechanisms themselves are just more boxes with
internal mechanisms. For example, ancient people praying to
gods for rain are merely assuming that what they think are the
internal mechanism of weather – the actions of gods – can be
slanted in their favor. Today we know the internal mechanism
of weather are not gods but complex patterns in our
atmosphere, so we seek a weather map hoping for good news.
It is this mechanistic regression argument that ends up with
the universal mechanistic postulate that there is always a
mechanism55
.
This discussion brings to the fore an important principle,
that it is not possible to treat issues as separate56
, especially in
social science.
To better understand organizations one needs to better
understand human psychology, and from within that better
understand knowledge, and science as an aspect of knowledge.
To build a science of organizations it is necessary to go back
to truly fundamental issues, beginning with the very nature of
social science. The OPD theory is built on this revised
understanding of social science.
47. 47
The question referred to above, namely ‘whether or not
there is ever any level of ‘box’ that has no internal mechanism
so we have the final and ultimate box?’ Can be formally
defined as “does any X-affects-Y exist such there is no
underlying immediate affects X-affects-Z-affects-Y?’ We get
the same answer, namely ‘perhaps’ ... but assuming there is
such a proposition goes counter to the whole of humankinds
experience to date, and if we assume there is no such
underlying immediate effect (the Z) it will certainly reduce our
search for it.
Summary of causal understanding in teams and the
professional frame of mind
All team outputs are the averaged from the actions of each
person in the team. The actions of each person are derived
from their mind guiding the neural flows in their brain which in
turn drives mood and behavior. The behavior of each team
member is linked to the strategy of the organization via the
mind of the team member. Group inputs such as talks,
newsletters etc, have an unknown impact on team member
minds hence results can only be statistical. The team leader
effectiveness is greatly improved if they deal directly one-on-
one with team members guiding them to develop their mind
relative to their required performance in the team.
The psychological frames in an individual relative to their
performance in the team are called their ‘professional mind’.
We need now review exactly the individual’s required
performance in a team and identify exactly the structure of the
team member’s professional mind that enables that
performance.
48. 48
“I am a practical manager, why should I
bother with this sort of intellectual stuff?”
This is a very good question. Depending on your attitude,
there are two answers.
First: If you are prepared to accept the background science
then read the section ‘Implementation: Redesigning the
organization’, and the copy of the brochure in the appendix,
acquaint yourself with other books in the ‘Redesigning the
organization series57
’, which are focused almost exclusively on
what to do and how to do it. Then contact an OPD consultant
and get on with it, increasing profits, engagement and
satisfaction in your organization.
Second: If you have any hesitation, if any thought at all slips
to mind about “what has this guy got that Harvard, or Stanford
or Oxford has not done six times already”, then you need come
to terms with what is here.
Imagine you have some capital and willing to invest in a
business. Now imagine some person comes along, like a fellow
called Gates about 1975, long hair and with a lot of geeky
mates… would you have invested? As Bill said in an interview
a few years ago “Be kind to geeks, likely you will end up
working for one”.
You will most likely invest in something that fits with what
you currently understand. Well, journal editors do rather the
same thing. The result is that which is currently accepted gets
most easily published, so the balance is always conservative.
Politics in the sense of what could be described as ‘political
correctness’ is very powerful, and there is a reluctance to judge
49. 49
ideas on merit, so it is less what it is, and more where it is
from, and whether or not it immediately ‘fits’ the mind reading
it.
There is no causality in groups or society, all social
causality is via the individual mind.
The influence of this can be seen for example, in economics.
The mechanisms of regulation and deregulation lie in mind;
individual consciousness and psychology are the mechanisms,
not groups, not invisible hand of markets, etc. This causal
reality needs exhibited in an appropriate level of scientific
conservatism since economists are not trained in these
mechanisms; they do not have the background conceptual
analysis of the mechanisms involved therefore not able to
comment. Such intellectual stature was not exhibited in the
recent58
financial crisis and the world paid dearly.
Practical managers today are not able to ignore intellectual
stuff when pronouncements by prominent intellectuals have the
potential to contribute to global financial meltdown. Practical
managers today need sufficient intellectual tools to judge the
ideas and not merely acquiesce before the high profile source
of the ideas which assumes there is integrity in these lofty
places when we have learned there may not be.
This work is not my opinion; I am merely the vehicle for
exploring the logic and the application of clearly defined
intellectual processes to a well defined system. This has not
been done previously and leads to sustainable and improved
answers to the key question of getting the best out of people
within the organization.
50. 50
It is only through intellectual rigour do we achieve better
thinking that enables improved sustainable solutions that
produce improved sustainable results.
51. 51
A brief look at OPD basic theory
We can begin with goal-action; that for every goal there are
actions that must be delivered if the goal is to be achieved. For
example, if you are responsible for maintaining the food in the
fridge, the fridge is empty and you go to the movies, not the
supermarket, then there will be no surprise if the fridge is still
empty on your return home.
Ideal actions underlie every goal
The point is very simple and general, underlying every goal
there are actions that must be implemented if the goal is to be
achieved. I call the actions underlying a goal the ‘ideal
actions’, which are of the quality that doing them does not
guarantee success59
, but not doing them guarantees failure.
We can now apply the goal-action principle to
organisations. We begin with strategy as a complex goal which
has implicit detailed goals that need to be achieved if the
strategy is to be realised. It follows that as we derive the
detailed goals from strategy then under each detailed goal there
are ideal actions that must be enacted if the goal is to be
achieved. (Call each detailed goal a key performance indicator
or KPI for short.)
The goal cascade builds the organization role structure
Deriving the KPI structure from the strategy is called the
goal cascade. KPIs are grouped ‘like with like’ to form roles
and roles grouped into jobs. For example, a sales and
marketing manager has two very different roles, running a sales
team and doing the marketing thinking.
52. 52
Grouping KPIs like with like means an overlap in the
necessary ideal actions so a person assigned the role is not
expected to have skills and exhibit behaviors that are too broad
and diverse.
Ideal actions are a key leadership judgment
We can approach the identification of the ideal actions quite
objectively. Deciding on ideal actions is a rational and
objective decision arising from analysis and experience of what
actions need to be taken if the goal is to be fully achieved.
Determining ideal actions that underlie any goal is a key
leadership judgment that in the first instance is made without
reference to people; it is an objective assessment by
experienced people as to what someone must do to give
themselves the greatest chance of greatest success.
Leadership effectiveness is how well the team leader guides
delivery of agreed ideal actions
People are then assigned the role, consisting of the KPIs and
agreed ideal actions whereby the KPIs are most likely
achieved. Any one job may consist of two or more roles. The
role assigned a person is called their personal game plan
derived from the team game plan; it specifies their contribution
to the team effort.
People are then expected to approach the delivery of
assigned roles in an objective manner I call ‘professional’. The
approach is exactly the same as a sports person approached
their game… so a top golfer approaches every shot with an
objective determination and a degree of detachment; they know
they need focus and concentrate in order to deliver the perfect
53. 53
shot, that they need have a clear mind and steady emotions if
they are to have their body do that which is needed.
The emotional relationship between a sports person and
their game is the same as person assigned a role in business and
delivery of the ideal actions in that role. Generating this
emotional state one of focus and clarity, I call ‘turning up’,
with the exact same imagery as in sports, that a team may be on
the court, but if they did not ‘turn up’ their mind was not on the
task.
This underlying structure is summarised in figure 5 below,
where an ‘organization’ is compared to sport.
The remainder of the book is then reviewing exactly how to
apply this theory and the consequences to be expected when it
is applied. But first we need review a number of important
definitions.
54. 54
SPORT Goal (Win)
Action (ideal
actions
enabling best
chance of
greatest
success)
No-one doubts
the sport is
separate from
people
Figure 5: A very brief look at OPD basic theory
BUSINESS KPIs (Achieve)
Ideal actions: Business is like sport,
the organization is separate from
people.
1. The goal action principle will get better
results for the individual who chooses to apply
themselves.
2. All things equal, more of the ideal action more
success.
3. Ideal actions underlie every strategy
independent of people.
4. Actions: (1) Build team ‘game plan’. (2)
Ensure all team members have clear personal
game plan drawn from team game plan. (3)
Guide people to ‘turn up’ and do it.
55. 55
Definition of design specification, paradigm,
and social technology
Leadership is aligning of minds to the task and generating
energy in relation to doing what is needed to achieve the result.
Therefore it is crucial to have a framework of definitions able
to be shared that define the key items of mind and how and
where they apply.
‘Social technology60
’ offers the actual thinking frames and
emotions to enable improved results for someone who adopts
the technology. For example, guidelines on the type of thinking
needed to build a professional mind and so enable an objective
approach to the assigned tasks.
A coach will guide a sports person to exercise mental
discipline to ensure their mind assists and supports the
performance they seek and does not erode or cloud what they
need do to achieve the results. The willingness to adopt this
sort of disciplined objective management of one’s thinking is a
critical aspect of the ‘professionalism’ required to succeed at
almost any endeavor.
A second example is applying the idea of flow61
, that of
losing oneself in the task as the state of greatest happiness and
satisfaction. Flow is often discussed in management and
leadership books but discussed as a concept62
, whereas OPD
theory offers a tool, a social technology to realize flow by
having people lose themselves in the daily task of delivery of
ideal actions.
56. 56
Design specification:
Explicit information about
the requirements for a
product and how the
product is to be put
together. A ‘state of art’
design specification has
implicit within it the latest
science and technology.
OPD theory: The ‘state of
art’ design specification for
organizations based on a new
intellectual platform for social
science. The OPD theory is
the manner of thinking about
organizations and leadership
that lead to the OPD-SHRM
system.
Paradigm: A set of
assumptions, concepts,
values, and practices that
constitutes a way of
viewing reality for the
community that shares
them; the agreed intellectual
framework enabling a
common approach to
dealing with common
issues.
OPD-SHRM system: A
paradigm for team leaders
derived from the OPD theory
with associated processes
enabling the paradigm to be
applied in every team and to
every team member; the social
technology for implementing
the OPD theory in the
organization to achieve
sustainable improved results.
57. 57
The OPD theory is the system of thinking used to
understand organizations, leadership in organizations, and
roles, etc. The OPD-SHRM system is the paradigm derived
from the theory to be used by team leaders to orientate
themselves to the task of guiding a team to greatest results.
There is nothing more useful than and a good theory
Each team leader is expected to hold a frame in mind on
which is the OPD paradigm. The paradigm itself consists of
variables that are used in judging the most effective action, this
decision is reached by inserting the actual values of variables in
the paradigm for a particular person in the team and then
judging where their effort can be best improved. The team
leader then has a discussion of the analysis with the person
who then may choose to adjust their effort toward a better
result. Each person is expected to hold in mind a frame of their
KPIs and ideal actions, and to approach the delivery of ideal
actions in an objective, committed professional manner. In
short, the OPD overall system guides each person to build a
better personal theory of what they need do and how to do it to
be more successful.
58. 58
Understanding design specifications
The quality of any object we create depends on the quality
of our thinking about that object at the time we created it. The
‘design specification’ is the core of the thinking about an
object used to create the object.
A design specification is how we ‘see’ the object.
Example of engineering design specifications
Fundamentals are that better science builds better
engineering and better engineering builds better design
specifications which build better bridges or airplanes (or
fridges or washing machines).
1. The design specification reflects the quality of our
thinking when the machine was conceptualized and
reflects the background quality of science and
engineering at that time.
2. Quality of science (leads to) quality of design
specification (leads to) quality of machine
3. Our construction of organizations is influenced in
exactly the same way.
4. Quality of social science (leads to) quality of
organization design specification (leads to) quality of
the organization
Imagine the engineering specification for a dish washer; we
are able to ‘see’ the overall design and elements within that
design. No aspect of the operation of a dish washer is outside
the design specification. Within the design specification we can
‘see’ the bearings and how they could be improved, how to
59. 59
reduce noise, how to improve the functioning of the dispenser,
each of these design elements able to be improved within the
overall design specification.
The design specification ‘orientates’ everyone to the dish
washer, the detail in the blue prints derived from the design
specification then coordinates the efforts of people who may
never talk to each other, but nonetheless their behavior is
integrated and coordinated by the blueprint, which is the shared
paradigm, at least that part of the blueprint appropriate is the
shared paradigm for that group.
A design specification implicitly carries the background
technology of the day
We can now see how the science and technology of the day
is implicit in the design specification. It is not possible to build
a carbon fiber casing without the technology of carbon fiber. I
understand this may sound silly, but it is crucial to understand,
we cannot do that which we cannot do, and to build practical
and workable things we need design it using what we
understand at the time.
Therefore as our understanding and the background science
and engineering principles improve so we can build better
machines, for example, we can build computer data sticks with
memory that is amazing to what we could do just five years
ago, simply because we better understand the science and
technology relevant to data sticks.
The point made here regarding social science is that there
have been no improvements in the last 100 years; hence we
struggle to improve insight into our organizations. The problem
60. 60
is the background thinking, the science, the tools and the core
philosophies that have limited growth in our understanding.
A design specification leads to a paradigm but is not itself
the paradigm
The shared way of thinking about the machine has as its
core the design specification then all the elements unraveled
and linked back to the core. It may be that some people only
hold in mind that part of the design specification and elements
that directly impacts them.
The paradigm for each person is that part of the ‘whole’
they hold in mind and use to guide their performance as
defined in the design specification. It may be that no-one holds
the ‘whole’ paradigm in mind, but everyone must be confident
in the core design specification and the integrity with which
elements are allocated so that they know that their efforts are
fully coordinated with the efforts of people with whom they
may never interact. It is perhaps only the Senior Executive who
‘see’ the ‘whole’ paradigm but only at a ‘high’ conceptual level
with the detail distributed into the divisions expected to deliver
particular aspects of the overall design.
Changing the design specification typically creates
resistance
Changing the design specification is a change in the
paradigm, which is a change in personal thinking. Changes in
personal thinking can produce resistance. If some people are
committed to the original design, or with substantial vested
interest in it, or of a lesser intellectual flexibility, or of a fearful
orientation to change, then the change will be resisted from the
earliest stage.
61. 61
Conflict of paradigms between individuals
The tensions between people for and against the change of
design specification can be viewed as a conflict of paradigms,
conflict between alternative ways of ‘seeing’ the machine and
perhaps its place in the market, economy, product mix, etc.
Tensions arising over conflict in ways of thinking can only be
resolved by one person being convinced to change their mind,
or by use of authority to overrule their objections.
Imagine a person fully accepts the design change. The mind
is not a computer; the new design does not ‘overwrite’ the old.
Both paradigms will be present in mind. Depending on how
long the old design was used, there may be habituated ways of
thinking based on the old design that result in a lengthy period
of learning and adjustment to overcome habit. If the new
paradigm uses similar terms to the old design specification but
entails quite different definitions, this will further complicate
learning and adjustment, and will lengthen the learning period.
If a person (Fred) has accepted the new design but has not
yet been coached in some particular design elements, and if
that new design element uses a term (say ‘engagement’) from
the old design that now has a different definition, then if
someone (Cassie) holds a discussion with Fred using the term
‘engagement’, then Fred will be thinking of the old design
specification definition, and Cassie will be thinking of the new.
So even if verbal agreement is reached the mental views can be
very different resulting in sharp differences if action is
expected in regard to the term (engagement).
62. 62
Conflict of paradigms within the individual
Even if the person fully accepts the new design
specification, it will still require attentive vigilance to avoid
slipping into old habits and patterns of thinking. (The brain
drives habits; the brain in turn driven by entropy, only attention
and active and conscious effort can avoid the brain dominating
the mind with habituated ways of thinking and subsequent
behavior).
Improving the design elements of a flawed design
specification will not fix the flaw
Imagine a design specification that was inherently flawed so
the machine did not work very well. Imagine various elements
– the motor, bearings, and noise level - were improved, but the
inherent design flaw was not corrected and without this the
machine would continue to not work well.
For example, imagine an airplane design specification, but
the prototype is under powered and will not perform to the
specification. To increase engine power requires the wings be
shifted, and to shift the wings means they need to be
redesigned and the cockpit will need to be shifted, and all the
wiring altered… In short, the design specification was flawed -
best to begin again.
Understanding organization design specifications
Organizations are not things beyond us in the way a tree or a
photon is a ‘thing’ beyond us, we humans create organizations.
Therefore the quality of the organization depends on the
quality of our thinking when it was created63
. The nature of out
thinking when we created the organization I call the
‘organization design specification’.
63. 63
The organization design specification is a design
specification like any other; it is the framework of thinking
from within which we create the organization. It is not possible
to create a washing machine without a design specification. To
press the point, it is not possible to create a work of art without
some idea of the aim. When a novelist writes a novel, the
characters can take over, the work can take twists that were not
seen prior, but the author would normally have an overall idea
of where it is going, they just allow the characters to shape the
road by which the book travels. This type of background
thinking is part of how we work; very seldom do we act
without some orientating purpose existing within a framework
of insight and understanding, even if at times we are not fully
aware of the framework. For specific machines we always
have a design specification, we are conscious of the framework
and our deliberate focus on it before we begin to build.
Typically there is a unique design specification for each model
of machine.
For organizations it has been different; first we have one
design specification for all organizations, furthermore we built
the organization on an intellectual platform we took for
granted. We were not conscious that we used an organization
design specification, and this design specification does carry
technology of the day, in that it is based on the existing insight
into social science at the time we created the organization.
Where we did perhaps question the design specification,
then we bumped into significant issues such as whether or not
the organization was separate from people, which was closely
related to the question of whether or not knowledge once
created was separate from the knower, which was related to the
64. 64
question of causality. It becomes complex and difficult, it was
what I call a ‘complex and intertwined’ problem situation not
amenable in any way to the typical Descartes64
‘divide and
rule’ or ‘isolate and resolve separately’ thinking processes that
have dominated scientific thought for centuries. When there are
interrelated problems then the only recourse is iterative that is
to create a solution then carry it around every problem in the
complexity, if it does not solve them all, then it is rejected and
we create another solution until one is found that does resolve
all problems.
The core intellectual platform of social science is barely
changed in 100 years. The social science paradigm at the time
of the Hawthorn experiments was largely the same as it is
today. It is the intellectual platform, the very nature of our
insight into causality, social causality, psychology, and
ontology that has resulted in little or no progress in our insight
into organizations in 100 years. Except in sport where no-one
seriously offered the idea that sport and people were the same,
clearly they were not. So the idea of professionalism in sport
developed with clear differentiation that sport was what
someone did, objective, rational, with performance able to be
discussed independent of the person feeling offended as some
slight on them.
What we ‘see’ depends intimately on how we think.
Therefore a shift in the insights and principles of social science
offers the opportunity to ‘see’ our social problems very
differently and using better intellectual tools create different
and more effective solutions. The start is here with the
application of this new intellectual platform to making our
66. 66
Current organization and HR models are
based on a flawed design specification
There are intrinsic flaws in the current global HR design
specification that working with the various elements cannot
overcome.
1. There is no direct link between outputs and staff
behavior. The only process linking results to staff
behavior is statistical; there is no causal understanding in
organizations since there is no understanding of cause.
2. There are weak linkages of ‘management theory’ to
general theories of psychology, and knowledge. It is as
if greater insight into psychology or knowledge would
have no impact on insight into management. This is the
‘strategic flaw’ of lack of doing first things first.
3. The organization is treated as the same as people, this is
the ontological flaw.
4. Management and organization is treated as a stand alone
subject, able to be discussed without reference to social
science issues and theories. This is the ‘relatedness
flaw’.
5. There are no clear and concrete tools that lead the
conceptualization process and create knowledge of a
systematic and known quality and standard. This is the
‘theory creation flaw’.
There have been repeated efforts at getting a better and more
effective system. But these efforts have dealt with design
elements not with failings in the fundamental intellectual
67. 67
platform the core of the design specification used to create the
organization.
In fact, as in the case of the airplane design specification,
unless the interaction of the elements in the design is taken into
account, then changing one element may adversely impact the
application of the design specification. This is the case with the
current organizational design which is irrevocably flawed and
where repeated failed attempts to ‘upgrade’ - for example,
MBO, performance management systems, 360 degree, job
enhancement, goal ownership, cultural audits, many motivation
programs, HRIS systems (although the administration of HR is
important, it is when these try to flow into the delivery of HR
that they exhibit limitations) - has deepened cynicism of the
processes and of HR in general65
.
As already stated, if the design specification is flawed then
no amount of altering the detailed design elements will
improve performance.
This limitation of HR is solely due a flawed design
specification which cannot be overcome by changes to
individual design elements.
68. 68
The OPD theory66
is a superior organization
design specification
I began with the view that it is the actual design
specification itself that was flawed, and the results have proved
that to be so.
The fundamentals implicit in the OPD theory and on which
it rests include management and organization fully created by
people therefore are part of social science. Cause is clearly
defined. The ontology of the organization is clearly defined.
The epistemological tools for theory creation in social science
are clearly defined as is the link between outputs and staff
behavior. Human psychological variables and the causality
implicit in those variables are fully accounted for.
The OPD theory has now been accepted into the peer
reviewed literature67
.
69. 69
Summary of alternative organization design specifications
The current global
organization design
specification assumes:
1. ‘Management and
organization’ can be
discussed separate from
social science.
2. The insight and theories
in social science and are
not relevant to
management insight.
3. That people are
inseparable from the
organization.
4. All links between
strategy and staff
behavior are statistical
not direct and not causal.
The OPD organization
design specification assumes:
1. ‘Management and
organization’ are fully
part of social science.
2. Lasting management
insight can only be
derived from the ‘first
things first’ principle of
dealing with the prior
issues in social science.
3. That people are separate
from the organization.
4. Links between strategy
and staff behavior are
direct and causal.
These two systems of thought are diametrically opposed and
lead in profoundly different directions.
70. 70
The OPD theory of organization design and
leadership
I will not discuss this full theory. It is seldom used in
practice. Team leaders are guided to build their ‘professional
leadership frames’ based on OPD team leader paradigm and
guided on how to apply it on the basis that applying it will
enable them to achieve a better results than they would using
any other system of thinking and associated tools. It is this
direct guidance on building ‘professional frame of mind’ that
makes OPD theory in practice a ‘social technology’. This raises
an oft misunderstood issue that applies in much of social
science and management. The issue is to understand exactly the
line between normative advice and objective science68
.
The OPD theory has the following key features69
.
1. The goal cascade from strategy to the KPIs in each
role70
. If all KPIs are achieved, the strategy is achieved.
2. Apply the causal link between goals and ideal actions
needed to achieve the goals. Ideal actions are driven by
the goal and are independent of people71
.
3. Then link the mind of the person assigned a role to the
ideal actions needed in the role such that the ideal
actions are delivered with increased effectiveness.
OPD-SHRM is the name applied to the set of human
resource management processes72
that enable greatest
opportunity of greatest organizational success.
The full theory is in the diagram below.
71. 71
The epistemology on which the OPD theory is based
describes science as existing in variables and relationships
between variables, that by applying the tools of Ashby, these
relationships are then conceptualized into systems of ultimate
and immediate affects. These diagrams are the OPD theory.
This is fully social science.
Applying the OPD theory via OPD-SHRM system then
crosses the boundary; it is normative in that it gives advice and
guidelines of what a team leader must do to deliver the theory
in their team. Thus for instance, OPD theory rests on the
understanding of psychological frames, then OPD-SHRM
states that for a person to implement OPD theory with the
prospect of the greatest success then the advice is to opt for
attitudes on frames such as the following.
What I see depends on what I think, therefore by adopting a
better theory of the link between strategy and behavior I can
use it to get a better result ... I can choose to seek and build
better ideas …
I can choose to be successful at work…I can choose to be
professional and focus on the actions at work that enable my
greatest success…I can choose to ‘turn up’ each day…I can
choose to cooperate with my team leader to improve my
professionalism…I can make it happen if I choose and put in
the effort.
These recommendations are not OPD theory, which consists
of objective variables plus carefully conceptualized
relationships between those variables; it is the OPD-SHRM
system, namely the OPD theory in practice.
72. 72
These recommendations of effective way of thinking to get
best result arise from consideration of the issue: If someone
was to commit to deliver OPD theory what would be the sort of
thinking that would best enable the greatest result? This
relationship between theory and practice, between normative
advice and objective science is typical of all social science73
.
73. 73
Diagram of the OPD theory of strategy rollout
Strategy
Team
structure,rolesin
teams
Idealactionstoachievegoals
Goals,KPIs
OPD-SHRMIS
Monitoring
teamleader
implementationof
OPD-SHRM
processes
Psychologicaltargets
Leadershipactions1
Setuparchitecture
Leadershipactions2
Buildperformanceculture
Leadershipactions3
Maintainsuperiorperformance
Engagement
Clarityofgoals/KPIs
Visualizationofideal
actions
Commitment
Personalchoice
Professionalism
Teamleadersupport.
Buildownframeof
professionalmind.
Buildframeofreference
forwork.
Managecommunity
frameofreference.
TheOPDtheoryofstrategic
humanresourcemanagement
torolloutstrategy
74. 74
The OPD paradigm used in practice74
The paradigm is the cognitive tool used by team leaders to
‘see’ and assess the team and the performance of people in the
team. Details for each person are inserted into the paradigm in
preparation for discussions with the person about the delivery
of ideal actions assigned them and the ongoing aptness of those
ideal actions.
The first step of the OPD paradigm is ‘get the concept right
first’ that is ensuring clear strategy, team/role structure judged
most likely to succeed, then the ideal actions in each role. Once
created, then from the CEO point of view75
, they have the
strategy and the set of ideal actions across the whole
organization, such that if the ideal actions are delivered to
standard, then the strategy is achieved.
Definition of perfect rollout delivering sustainable
perfect results
1. Leadership judgment: Perfect judgment of strategy,
cascaded through perfectly judged organization
structure, then ideal actions perfectly identified
relative to each key performance indicator in every
organization role.
2. Leadership effectiveness: Perfect delivery of ideal
actions by each person.
Once the concept is judged apt and agreed the focus is
shifted to achieving delivery of ideal actions to standard.
75. 75
Delivery of ideal actions is delegated to every team leader who
is expected to follow the OPD-SHRM processes at working
with team members in supporting them to build their
professional minds relative to their choices.
Ideal actions go far beyond job descriptions, they do not
belong to people at all being totally dependent on strategy and
the goals (KPIs) derived from strategy. At this point the
organization and what it needs from people is completely
independent of people.
The first stage, labeled 1 in the figure 6, sets up the
organization ‘architecture’ from strategy through team
structure and roles in team, to define goals (KPIs) in each role,
Strategy
OPD-SHRMIS
Monitor processes
done and done to
standard
Guide
people
to do it
Goal/KPI
cascade
Ideal actions
Teams and
roles in teams
2 31
Figure 6: The OPD paradigm
for team leaders
76. 76
and ideal actions derived from goals essential if the goal is to
be achieved.
The architecture is not the team/reporting structure; rather it
is the cascade of goals leading to the ideal actions. In creating
teams/divisions, etc, the rule followed is ‘like goals with like
goals’, this is important since goals generate ideal actions, so if
markedly dissimilar goals are combined in a role, then the
behavioral spread will be very wide, demanding an
extraordinary spread of competencies in the person assigned
the role76
. The central document defining the architecture is
called the ‘role performance specification’, defining the KPIs,
ideal actions, noting extraordinary issues and factors in the
role77
. We regard clarity of roles as important, with improved
clarity supporting improved role delivery. Role multiplicity
also improves role performance, by enabling clarity of the role
structure of the job, and the actions needed within each role.
Time available is assigned to each role, then the time
assigned the role is distributed across the ideal actions, this
process of allocating time across the roles and ideal actions in
the role is called time budgeting78
.
Key terms are (1) behavioral structure which is the set of
ideal actions underlying some set of KPIs, hence behavioral
structure of the organization as a whole, of a division, of a
team, or of a particular role79
. (2) Behavioral balance is the
assignment of time available across the roles and ideal actions
within each role. The term ‘balance’ referring to balanced
effort across the ideal actions judged the most likely
distribution of effort to achieve the greatest result. It is
important to understand that the time budget is not set in stone,
77. 77
it can often be ignored for several weeks, but if ignored for too
long then some aspect of the required result will not be
achieved.
It is the fundamental leadership priority of the CEO to guide
identifying the behavioral balance across the organization that
is judged as offering the greatest chance of the greatest result80
.
This process is referred to as leadership judgment, beginning
with strategy and ending with the identification of the actions
needed offering greatest chance of greatest strategic success.
The person assigned the role must be involved in finalising
the ideal actions in the role. Once finalised the ideal actions are
signed off by the team leader, the team leader’s boss, and by
the person assigned the role. It is the CEO who is ultimately
responsible for the ideal actions identified as being those
needed to achieve strategy.
The second step labelled 2 in figure 1 is cultural and
developmental in staff involving the application of the staff in
delivering the ideal actions judged most likely to achieve
greatest result.
Definition of strategic HR management (SHRM)
Within the OPD theory SHRM is intrinsic to HR, and is the
activity of aligning actual staff behavior with the ideal actions
agreed as needed for success. Within the OPD theory the
process of aligning actual staff behavior with agreed ideal
actions is the fundamental process of roll out of strategy. The
set of HR processes to achieve the roll out is called OPD-
SHRM.
OPD-SHRM actions: (1) Build team ‘game plan’ relative to
strategy. (2) Ensure all team members have clear personal
78. 78
game plan drawn from team game plan. (3) Guide people to
‘turn up81
’ and do it.
Summary: OPD-SHRM = roll out of strategy.
Monitoring and corporate management of the SHRM
processes
There are very clear and well defined processes in the OPD-
SHRM system. The principle is that if every team leader does
the SHRM processes to standard in their team then the team
has greatest chance of achieving the greatest result.
If the ideal actions are identified and delivered to standard
then the results must be achieved … the provisos are (1) the
ideal actions are apt and accurate in relation to the KPIs; (2)
there is effective guidance to sustain delivery of the ideal
actions; (3) that economic conditions do not change.
It is the role of HR to monitor implementation of the SHRM
processes in every team; this monitoring system is provided
and is called OPD-SHRMIS82
(the SHRM information system
labelled 3 in figure 1).
If the SHRM processes are not being implemented in any
team then HR person discusses that with the team leader,
checks they have the skills etc, then if the team leader persists
with failure to implement the SHRM processes HR reports the
failure to the senior manager of the team leader.
These corporate processes are not the ‘operation’ of the
OPD-SHRM system which is focused on each individual mind
via team member-team leader one-on-one discussions: Rather
they are merely organization wide monitoring to assess the
