BEHAVIOUR AS A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL IN PARTNERSHIPS Dr John Carlisle, Teacher of Adults, magister ludi Associate: Centre for Integral Excellence Sheffield Hallam.

BEHAVIOUR AS A DIAGNOSTIC TOOLIN PARTNERSHIPS

Dr John Carlisle, Teacher of Adults, magister ludiDr John Carlisle, Teacher of Adults, magister ludiAssociate: Centre for Integral ExcellenceAssociate: Centre for Integral Excellence

Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffield Hallam University

EFQM EDUCATION COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE - Bergen

PRESENTATION FLOW

• THE NEED FOR CHANGE TO COOPERATION, i.e. our organisations are, at best, sub-optimised – and there are serious consequences: Performance, environment and morality

• THE CAUSES LIE IN THE WAY WE THINK AND BEHAVE

• THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE BOTH• EXAMPLES OF THE BEHAVIOURAL

CHANGES AND CONSEQUENCES

CAUSES OF THE FAILUREOur habits of thinking:Not understanding our organisations, i.e. thinking we are leading a university, when it is, first of all, an organisation (“der ding an sicht”) The king thought he was building a castle!

Traditional OrganisationTraditional Organisation

Copyright John Carlisle, 1997

““FREE TO THINK”FREE TO THINK”(TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL)

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

EF

FO

RT

EF

FO

RT

Intellectual Capital

Blaming and Defending

External Relationship Failure

Internal System and Relationship Failure

CompetitivePolicies

e.g. ranking, departments competing, bonuses

Feedback for Relationships and Systems Improvement

Trust-Building

CooperativePolicies

e.g. Teamworking, knowledge-sharing

Relationship Failures

Intellectual Capital

Main_Idea

FROM HIERARCHICAL THINKING (Dr W Edwards Deming)….

TRANSFORMATION

SUPPLIERS CUSTOMERS

FEEDBACK FROMCONSUMERS

REDESIGN

TO SYSTEM THINKING….

Main_Idea

FROM TRADITIONAL EDUCATION “MANAGING” - CONTROLCONTROL

LEARNER-CENTERED PEDAGOGY

PROVIDERS USERS

FEEDBACK – EXPLICIT NEEDS of USERS and ENVIRONMENT

DESIGN & REDESIGN

TO WORLD CLASS “ENABLING” – EFFECTIVE WHOLE

GOVERNANCE

We need, therefore,

PARADIGM SHIFTPARADIGM SHIFT

Managing the meta and Managing the meta and micro together:micro together:

CONSCIOUSNESSCONSCIOUSNESSandandCOMPETENCECOMPETENCE

CONSCIOUSNESS

COMPETENCE

ConsciousIncompetence

ConsciousCompetence

UnconsciousIncompetence

UnconsciousCompetence

Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997

CONSCIOUSNESS??

COMPETENCE

ConsciousIncompetence

ConsciousCompetence

UnconsciousIncompetence

UnconsciousCompetence

Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997

RAISING CONSCIOUSNESSRAISING CONSCIOUSNESS

• PERFORMANCE DATA: Grades, Growth, Profit

• MAKE VISIBLE: Challenge Policies, esp. incentives

Copyright John Carlisle, 1997

““FREE TO THINK”FREE TO THINK”(TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL)

K

N

O

W

L

E

D

G

E

EF

FO

RT

EF

FO

RT

Intellectual Capital

Blaming and Defending

External Relationship Failure

Internal System and Relationship Failure

CompetitivePolicies

e.g. ranking, departments competing, bonuses

Feedback for Relationships and Systems Improvement

Trust-Building

CooperativePolicies

e.g. Teamworking, knowledge-sharing

Relationship Failures

Intellectual Capital

CONSCIOUSNESS

COMPETENCE??

ConsciousIncompetence

ConsciousCompetence

UnconsciousIncompetence

UnconsciousCompetence

Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997

COMPETENCE (EI)COMPETENCE (EI)

• MAKE VISIBLE: Appropriate, Valid Models of Success

• BEHAVIOURAL PERFORMANCE DATA

• SKILL PRACTICE

• PDSA

COOPERATION: AN ORGANISATIONAL COMPETENCE EI

The Learning Disadvantage of Power and Control(client not learning; but always paying!)

“TELL”

“INCLUSIVE”

83% 69%

17%31%

CLIENTS CONTRACTORS

- Giving Information- Making Proposals

- Asking Questions- Building On Others’ Ideas

Source: Three major strategic alliances and project partnerships in Europe Relationship sample : 118 Senior Managers

GROUP BEHAVIOUR RATIOS

PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS

COMBINED MEETINGS

= Giving information

= Asking questions

= INITIATING

= REACTING

Copyright John Carlisle Partnerships, 1997

70%81

11%9%

72

48%

24%

13% 15%

CLARIFYING

10%

“NORMAL” MEETINGS

TOP TEAMS

#

# RailtrackBest Practice

48

27

163:1

9

/ 2002

Copyright John Carlisle, with Parker & Doyle, 1997

Impact on Relationship

Damages

Strengthens

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 assessment

Optimum Quality ofImplementation

‘B’ should take action

‘A’ shouldtake action

Both feel fairly treated ? ?

Areaof

Profit

Area of

Waste

both delighted

Win/Win feelingIncreased Trust

Increased Likelihood of added value

Win/Lose feelingDecreased TrustMinimum risk-

willingness

Area of

Waste

Win/Lose feelingDecreased TrustMinimum risk-

willingness

‘A’ Disappointed ‘B’ Disappointed

TAGUCHI CURVE MONITORING RELATIONSHIPS Noting that all waste is ultimately a loss to society

Social Housing Project Cost

• Commit to InvestCommit to Invest £4,500,000£4,500,000

• Original Budget £3,439,000

• Project Variations £ 165,000

• Final project cost £3,604,000

• Percentage variance +4.8%

• Overall Saving £896,000 or 20%

Programme Delivery

• Commit to Invest Programme 96 weeks

• Agree Project Programme 58 weeks

• Extensions of time 4 weeks

• Revised contract period 62 weeks

• Actual contract period 62weeks

• Project completed On Time

• Overall Saving 34 weeks or 35%