Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Managing Partner, The Federal Circle
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
Dr-Smith.com
Board assessment and self-evaluations are a normal part of a director’s life. A proper governance model can provide opportunities for assessments to play a constructive role in corporate and personal growth. The depth of the assessment must be determined before the actual assessment begins. Boards may choose to conduct only minimal assessments to meet compliance requirements. However, ambitious boards with strong, confident leadership may choose to tackle issues to improve corporate governance and ultimately lead to a stronger governance model and improve the performance of the company.
When establishing the appropriate assessment model, the board of directors as a whole considers issues such as:
- Assessment approach and depth
- Assessment responsibilities
- Assessment committee resources (how wide to cast the net)
- Assessment result dissemination
The strength or weakness of a board often determines the depth of assessment. A board taking a minimalist approach to corporate assessment is often a weak and resistant to change. The Chairman of the board of directors may have a leadership style that dominates the rest of the directors. Weak boards often believe a strong assessment of the governing body signals a lack of confidence in the Chairman – when actually the opposite is true.
Leadership assessments that tackle tough issues demonstrate confidence in the board of director’s capability to address touchy issues and meet challenges for the benefit of the shareholders. A leadership that takes this approach is seizing an opportunity to improve corporate governance, and establish a leadership development program that addresses the issues important to the performance of the company. Whether the weakness lies in compliance management, corporate ethics, corporate finance, or Sarbanes-Oxley regulation compliance, failure to identify a problem, acknowledge a problem and correct a problem is malfeasance of corporate governance.
The responsibility for seeing that the assessment is conducted within the parameters set out by the board rests with the assessment committee. A small single issue assessment may be done by the committee, however a major in-depth assessment will probably yield more valuable results if conducted by an outside, independent professional skilled in interviewing and assessment disciplines. I have arranged many of these assessments – and the value of having a third-party conduct an independent assessment can be huge – with the shareholders and board members benefiting. Using state-of-the-art technology, assessments are quick, confidential and highly effective. The board and committee should outline an effective strategy addressing the following:
- Confidentiality: the Chairman should address this. Directors not related to the assessment committee should allow the assessment committee to work independently of the board. Members of the assessment committee should be required to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding all sensitive information.
- Issues: the board should arrive at a set number of critical issues to be address by the assessment committee. The committee should have the authority to ‘follow the trail as the need arises, but the assessment committee should not be on a ‘witch-hunt.’
- Data collection: the assessment committee should have the sole discretion of the method of collecting data. The consultant or firm collecting the data should understand the committee’s objective and act as an adviser to the committee on data collection methods used successfully in the past.
- Feedback management: the board should dictate to the committee the expected feedback package to come from the assessment. A single-issue assessment may only require an oral report from the committee. A thorough, multi-issue leadership assessment may require the consultant to produce a report and to appear before the board to discuss results and recommendations for leadership development.
Most boards and committees with competent leadership want to conduct a meaningful assessment of the strengths and weaknesses. A comprehensive board assessment is great strategic tool to begin the process of better board governance and often leads to personal growth of the directors involved.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
~~~~~~~~~~
Related Articles:
-
Board Succession Planning – Two Tiered Candidate Criteria
-
Officer and Director Vetting
-
Good Governance – Minority Board Service
-
Good Governance – Balancing Eight Key Factors
-
Board Succession Planning – Two Tiered Candidate Criteria
-
Good Governance – Strategic Positioning for Strategic Planning
-
Governance and Risk Management Strategic Plans
~~~~~~~~~~
65 Responses to “Board Assessment: Raising Touchy Issues”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yvonne Geerts wrote:
At Fontys University of Applied Sciences, were I work, we use assessments to check if students have the acquired level of competencies to take the next step.
Greg McDonald wrote:
I agree with your comments Earl and with yours too, Matt.
People who get hung up on introducing processes into a company that is ‘off balance’, particularly for managing people, are prone to forget that simply talking to people, or organising a group discussion, introducing people to the idea that they are important to the organisation, at whatever level they’re operating, and plain old transparency and communication are often all that is needed in a turnaround.
From my experience, people working in businesses needing a turnaround are people who have been kept in the dark for ages, with little idea of their own worth or where the company is headed.
I’ve been trying to buy my way into a turnaround situation for several months now (as an investor & turnaround leader) where all these things apply. Senior management have gone this way and that over the past 12-18 months, without a clear strategy with buy-in from all managers, and the workforce is wondering when the whirlwind will end!
Matt, Your experience is fairly common and i agree that many companies use assessment programs in exactly the way you describe. I would observe that the ongoing programs you mention frequently employ assessment programs – and mostly to great benefit. The point has been made several times in response to my question – an assessment program to be effective must be contextualized within a broader program. Dr. Smith
Matt Jackson wrote:
I have never seen an assessment use by a company in trouble for anything other than a stalling tactic or “justification” by executives that are afraid, unwilling, or uncomfortable with having difficult conversations about things everyone (even the subject of the assessment) is already aware of.
Strong companies have ongoing candid conversations and leadership development to keep their management team strong and headed in the right direction.
In a turnaround situation the emotions tend to run pretty high so I focus on the ability of a manager to manage. If they can run their segment of the business, partner effectively with other managers, and not cause employee angst – they are doing fine. If not they need to accept coaching and turn this around quickly before the music stops and there is one less chair.
Tom, I too have seen the ‘silver bullet’ syndrome many times. The insidious tendencies of some have been mentioned by a number of contributors to the discussion. Its not just a question of the silver bullet but what the senior management wants to use of for. Some want it as a club to subdue the ‘masses’ – a particularly Hegelian attitude towards society and business. Others are merely gossips who want new grist for their mills. For me the ‘silver bullet syndrome’ is shorthand for people who have no taste for the details of management and continuously seek short cuts. An assessment program must be contextualized within a broader program which is carefully aligned with a company’s strategic and tactical plans. Such a program must take the long view and focus on developing human resources. The only prophylactic that I have found to the tendencies mentioned above is a strong, experienced and extended team lead by someone who can handle senior management’s tendencies to take the program off the rails. Dr. Smith
Bill, Thanks for the comment and ‘real world’ addition to the discussion. You make a very good point right up front. Assessment programs should be contextualized within a broader and intensive program. This is particularly true for leadership assessment. It takes time for individuals to internalize the lessons learned and make behavior changes based on those lessons. Lacking that, assessment programs can become curious experiences that have little lasting effect on either behavior or understanding. I have run extended programs in which smaller groups interacted over weeks. The pier reinforcement was very helpful in generating real change and producing new habits. I am also a big fan of producing coaches for the next generation through these programs. Dr. Smith
Posted by Tom Walsh, PhD wrote”
Utilizing individual and organizational assessments is core to a lot of what we do as consultants. However, as mentioned above, regardless of what assessments “tools” are being used, the committment has to be to design and implement the changes indicated, individually and/or organizationally. Too many companies continue to look for silver bullets versus holistic and gradual improvement over time.
Bill Rothwell wrote:
As a Vice President with Shell, I went through their 3-week Executive Leadership Program 4-5 years ago designed for those poised to progress to the top echelon of management, the so called Senior Executive Group. The program was designed together with PDI and continues today.
The first week was spent on assessment against 9 key areas: Builds Shared Vision; Champions Customer Focus; Maximizes Business Opportunities; Demonstrates Professional Mastery; Displays Personal Effectiveness; Demonstrated Courage; Motivates Coaches & Develops; Values Differences; Delivers Results Others. Most everyone found this assessment phase grueling and many were surprised by the hard critiques at the end of this phase. From here a personal development plan was developed in concert with a PDI coach and a senior Shell coach.
The second phase was followed may 6 months to 2 years later at a leading business school (in my case it was Insead in France) doing a mix of personal development but mostly education on the latest business school thinking.
The reviews of the program were a bit mixed–I think most felt it valuable. It did clearly have profound impacts with a few individual leaders who decided on their own to take another career path and leave the company. Many got useful insights they hadn’t had before. Most all benefited from the two weeks spent together with colleagues in the second phase, establishing career-long connections and networks.
In my own case, I did well in the assessment and continued to progress into the Senior Executive Group (please note however, that the results are held very confidential even within senior management and could not to be used as criteria for promotions etc…in fact there were a number of well known cases of those who advanced quickly despite a number of “red marks” on their assessment and vice versa).
Personally, I found the assessment a nice challenge, but, in honesty, received little in terms of useful new insights. I did benefit considerably from the interaction with colleagues and new learnings from the Insead exposure. It clearly was and is an expensive undertaking both in terms of direct cost and time investment.
The other related thing I’ve done, which I found equally valuable, was to serve as a coach on the next level down program for less senior managers. This experience really helped cement some of the basic learnings.
Hope helpful…
Debra Young, PHR wrote:
I use the Hogan Assessments. Effective recruiters use personality assessments to enhance their decision-making about the potential of applicants. These assessments give you a 360 degree analysis of a candidate. Their bright side, their dark side (which many recruiters don’t want you to know) and their motives and drivers which helps to make a cultural fit as defined by the client. I agree that assessment are to be used to gain information about a candidate to better help you make a good hiring decision. We have been successful with Hogan to the point that we offer a two year replacement guarantee which has never been employed. Hogan is highly validated and never been challenged in a court.
John, Thanks for adding a great comment and some historical perspective to the discussion. The resistance you mention is one of the constants – particularly the first time an organization has any assessment program run. Two attitudes converge – ‘we know what we are doing’ and ‘who are they to judge us’. I have found that the initial assessment brings these attitudes out in spades. One of the best ways to mitigate the tensions is to have senior management – all the way to the top – included in the assessment. A second way is to have an extended and highly experienced team running the program. Too many consultants focus on the gathering and delivery of the data. I recently accused one of being a sadist because of the glee she clearly felt in acting superior to the people who were being assessed. The team needs to be made up of very experienced people – my favorites are retired CXOs. The resulting ‘adult supervision’ goes a long way to helping the company get the most out of the process. Dr. Smith
John Staton wrote:
In the 1970′s a regime of analysis called Management By Objects and Key Operating Indicators was used by OMB at the Federal Level, by Chrysler Corporation under Lee Iaccoco, and in several large corporations. t was a great idea established by the Kepner Tregoe consulting company.
The concept was simple, and it allowed the users to rate management performance from both a subjective view and an objective view. I was one of those people chosen to “install” the process. It was fought by those people who did not want any measuring of their abilities. It communicated both up the management scale and down to the lowest position in the company. Even those who chose not to participate were measured by their performance.
Greg, Great comment. My experience is that it takes much more than the ability to run these assessment programs to have them come off successfully. When companies that I am working with ask for them, I always insist that the people running them be very experienced outside of the process of doing the assessment. By far the best people are retired CEOs who have built and managed teams. They know better how to manage the interpersonal tensions that result – particularly from an initial assessment. I also insist that the team managing the process and aftermath be broadly deployed, make the necessary connections beforehand, develop contingency plans that are communicated to and reviewed by senior management and have a post-data delivery plan that extends well into the future. These programs can be very helpful in improving performance if approached carefully and professionally. They can be very destructive if run by amateurs and casually deployed. Dr. Smith
Greg McDonald wrote:
Management assessment schemes are great, unless you’re dealing with people! What more often results from them is unnecessary umbrage. They’re mostly applied in and by organisations where power is hoarded at the centre, rather than devolved, and they most often are initiated by a central management team that doesn’t listen to or trust its middle-ranking managers.
A turnaround manager will or should, talk directly to people throughout the organisation, and outside it too (suppliers, customers), in order to develop a holistic view of the company. This is much more effective than a formal process.
Phillip, Thanks for the comment and for the URLs. Kauffman is an incredible resource. I also have used QuickView and similar programs. The key is preparing the people being assessed for the process and likely result. Most assessments go off the rail because the stage was not properly set or the consultants running the program lack the experience and gravitas to respond effectively to the inevitable tensions that bloom. Dr. Smith
kauffman.org)fasttrac.org)tdo.orgkauffman.org)fasttrac.org)tdo.org
Phillip Blackerby wrote:
On an individual level, assessment should be about what you do, no who you are: Do you do your job? Do you achieve the intended results? Do you meet ethical standards? Do you work well with others? Do you communicate effectively?
For entrepreneurs, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s (www.kauffman.org) FastTrac GrowthVenture (www.fasttrac.org) book (pp. 10-12) has a nice self-assessment to help people decide for themselves how comfortable they are with decision-making and planning, products and services, marketing, management and organization, operations and financial concerns, including the degree of uncertainty and risk in all these areas. Then it suggests adopting strategies to address areas needing improvements, such as partnerships, outsourcing, education, converting disadvantages into strategic advantages, or other mitigation strategies.
On an organizational level, I have used QuickView (/www.tdo.org/quickview.htm) with some success. It was developed specifically for manufacturers, but is easily adaptable to other organizations, including not-for-profits. It’s free!
Phillip E. Rosner, Ph D. wrote:
There seems to be some confusion between management assessment programs, team and personal development and organizational change.
My personal opinion is that they each need to be used very carefully and by professionals who understand and are skilled in all three technologies. An organization may start in one program and find that it needs to shift into a different one.
I dislike 360 assessments, unless they are used as a part of an ongoing program. In my experience, they are often used as a “weapon” against the organization, because the senior managers aren’t doing the meaningful individual assessments that are part of their job descriptions.
Remember, a 360 assessment is everyone’s opinion about you. The theory is that if enough people “call you a camel” you will start looking for a saddle. When done as a one-shot program, I find that often denial is too strongly entrenched to get more than a surface agreement on how a person should change.
Team development, especially in senior management teams, is a complex intervention that should be undertaken with great caution and performed by experienced professionals. The “exercises” are not the focus of such team development,— the complex responses to these activities are the focus. The second focus MUST be on ensuring that the skills and values derived from the team development activities are EMPLOYED IN THE WORK SETTING. This requires on-site work as well as off.
Organizational change has different goals and techniques. Although it can be IMPOSED from the top, there are multiple techniques that are more likely to endure. Again, a well-experienced professional is usually required.
Finally, there is a separate tool known as management assessment. It is only a “program” in that an organization decides to use this tool systematically in it’s hiring process of senior managers and other key people. When used like this, a professional, who is very familiar with the organization can help make judgments about potential hires AFTER the candidate’s skills and knowledge have been determined. This “aptness of fit” process requires extreme professional expertise and experience. It is most frequently done by psychologists.
Companies that use this tool tend to use it for two purposes:
1. The obvious professional opinion, and
2. The additional benefit of improving the interviewing skills of their hiring managers. The feedback process allows these managers to discuss what they “saw” in the candidate with a professional interviewer.
Mark, Thanks for a ‘real world’ comment. I have also had similar experiences. If I can get a company through the first assessments, the ones that follow become progressively more productive. You sound like you have experienced the release of ‘pent up anger’ first hand. It can really spoil a sunny day. Dr. Smith
Mark Herbert wrote:
Dr. Smith:
In candor I have tried to build some of the “expectations management” upfront. By that I mean making sure they are invested in the process. I also try to encourage them to look at the assessment as a “baseline” a place to begin rather than an ending point. My success has been mixed.
I have had executives who really took it to heart and we managed to build a stronger organization and others who simply terminated the process.
I have also found that if this is the first time you have initiated the process there may be some pent up anger. As you acknowledge the anger and begin to address concerns it dissipates and people begin to trust more in the process.
John, Thanks for the reply. The last part of your comment brings into focus the need to have a solid follow-up to the data collection and presentation. In my experience, this is where the process usually falls apart. There are lots of consultants out there who can effectively run the programs but far fewer who have the experience and gravitas to handle the pressure that comes afterward and constructively contribute to managing the changes necessary. Preparation for this process is critical. You need through and detailed buy-in across the organization as well as a trusted and experienced guide for the process. Without those pieces, you run the risk that the assessment will initiate a destructive process that could tear the organization apart. Dr. Smith
John Younker wrote:
Some years ago, when I was on the Field Research Staff at the American Productivity & Quality Center, I developed a data driven strategic planning process that I call, “Integrated Strategic Performance Planning.”
As a function of the assessment methodology I developed and the employment of a survey, followed by a focused set of interviews, I called this step, “Assessing the Environment.” The following is an excerpt from the paper.
“‘Assessing the Environment,” involves the assessment and analysis of the internal and external conditions impacting the organization; a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats). The assessment efforts, which were initiated in Step 1, include, but are not limited to, marketplace analysis, technological trends, community relations, financial and political climates, customer relations and needs and internal systems (i.e. information systems, human resources, R&D outlooks, etc.). Data sources might include surveys, interviews, performance measures, solicited and unsolicited customer inputs, supplier/vendor performance records, public and private business intelligence reports and other sources of information pertinent to the organization’s performance. A key aspect of this step is critical to gathering and packaging the data with a mind to the fact that senior management will be working in a team effort to analyze the information and reach consensus as to its implications. This will require extreme rigor the part of the data gathering task team to gather and effectively package the information with a mind to the axiom, “quantity is never a substitute for quality in the field of intelligence”.
The next step, “Identifying Issues and Opportunities” (focused results of the SWOT Analysis), is the analysis and appraisal of the organization’s current state. The senior managers and other members of the assessment task team, working through a structured data aggregation and analysis process identify, clarify and prioritize the internal and external business issues and opportunities. The primary objective in this effort is to reach consensus on the significance and potential impact of these key factors. These issues and opportunities are analyzed and discussed by the overall team, without regard to the normal functional or territorial constraints. This open sharing of data and consensus seeking efforts leads to holistic or system-wide view of the organization on the part of the members of senior management. This process is a key component in the building of a team-at-the-top. This leadership team will provide the key direction needed by the other members of the organization in their efforts to improve performance.
• The need for clearly defined vision and business plan (direction).
• The creation of a communication process that allows for clarification and buy-in; “Those who contribute, tend to support.”
• The receptivity by senior management to feedback from lower level personnel – both managerial and non-managerial inputs.
Key senior operational/functional managers and members of their staffs will then undertake a “gap analysis” of their current operations. This will include an analysis of the product and/or service delivery systems, customer satisfaction and orientation, human resource management practices, and capital equipment and facilities in an effort to identify obstacles and/or barriers to their ability to support the performance improvement plan. This will identify, “What will prevent our transition to the future state?” This gap analysis is done to prepare for the identification and selection of the most appropriate performance improvement tools and techniques that best fit the organization.
I am exceeding the limitation on the number of characters in a given response, so I had better stop here.
Have a great week!
John
Bob, Thanks for the comment. There are lots of consultants who offer similar services. Most of them use one or the other packaged products. In vetting them I have focused on the ‘extra-assessment’ experience of the consultants. If they have successfully built and/or managed a large organization, for instance, I am more likely to accept that they are going to be able to deal with the post-results-presentation pressures that always result. For me, consultants who are ‘experts’ in assessment programs are much like hammer salesmen. They are good at explaining the product – and even using it in a limited fashion – but they are not carpenters. When I bring in someone to handle the assessment programs, I am looking for a carpenter not a salesman. BTW, one very negative characteristic that I have found with some assessment consultants is a kind of Machiavellian approach to the process. They put themselves forward as the ‘revealers of truth’. They are particularly gleeful about causing turmoil but don’t have the skills and experience to manage it to a successful resolution. That is why I always use consultants who are very experienced executives who have learned how to use the ‘hammer’ of assessment productively. Dr. Smith
Bob Hougland wrote:
I have clients who swear by Lighthouse Consulting in L.A. Their program evaluates all the key people in a company, then coaches them on how to inter-relate more effectively with each other. Check out “Dana Borowka” on LinkedIn for his own description of his services
Mark, I have had similar experiences. Often assessment programs highlight weaknesses in either team members or the team itself. I have used these programs to highlight exactly that. When I am called in to do an assessment of a company for investors, I often use assessment programs to disabuse them of the sense that the team is strong and well coordinated. Very often the assessment is simply a stage setting step as a prelude to major changes.
I also agree that these programs can develop fairly direct and sometimes brutal assessments. Many executives – particularly ego driven ones – have a great deal of problems in those situations. How do you handle them?
Dr. Smith
Mark Herbert wrote:
Dr. Smith:
A couple of years ago I brought in a firm to do a 360 assessment for our entire executive team. It was pretty eye opening in many ways for everybody. My big disappointment was that several of the participants reacted very negatively- they rejected the feedback, became very defensive, and refused to participate in any development planning moving forward.
I also as a consultant just administered a 360 for an executive team. One in six of the executives moved forward with any kind of development plan.
I am a fan, but have found that on occasion we don’t like hearing what the assessment tell us….
Peter (Dutz) Manda wrote:
that’s very interesting, heather. it’s occurred to me when looking at gpra that too much lip-service has been given to managerial accounting and too little attention has been paid to the psychological dimensions.
Heather Ellis Judkins wrote:
Right, I understand. This is something we address frequently in I/O. Unfortunately, because we are more expensive (I/O Psych professionals), AC’s frequently train HR professionals instead. HR people do not have the same background or training that we do. We are actually coming from a psych background where we are trained to be more sensitive and thoughtful to these factors. HR types are less people/individual oriented and more “business” and bottom line. Ther is evidence that the more I/O professionals you have, the more effective the centers are in their results.
Peter (Dutz) Manda wrote:
task-oriented assessment at the “entry level”. – The only other insight I have to provide is: I have been subjected to the assessment process on the executive level. I have found it troublesome, because as an immigrant my behaviors don’t necessarily match up with desired indigenous patterns. Of course, like performance management, assessments are open to gaming. I just wish I knew how the gaming works!!
Heather Ellis Judkins wrote:
Peter,
Are you referring to entry level, specific task oriented assessment or are you also referring to asessment on all dimensions of behaviors? The data really is strong indicating that assessment and guidance for executives is extremely helpful for orgs and participants alike. However, if you have some insightful info- I am very open to hearing more of what you have to say.
Peter (Dutz) Manda wrote:
in the US corporate environment, I’ve had experience with an assessment program in data-processing. a contractual requirement created a quota-culture which was varnished with assessment language. rather than creating an environment geared toward excellence, the quota/assessment system converted the work into modern cotton-picking.
Tino, You are so right about ‘gaming the system’. I have had to intercede with CEOs who were doing just that. It isn’t only the people who are being assessed that can try to game the system. How do you deal with that situation? Dr. Smith
Tino Go wrote:
They are an excellent development tool in the context of an open-minded audience interested in self-assessment and self-improvement. Thus, lacking those three components, it’s just a waste of management and treasury resources.
On the other hand, as a means to assess management and its capabilities to execute an organization’s goals, it is useful also. One needs to be careful of individuals gaming the system, as well as not following through on recommendations (coupled with direct observations of performance and past and current behavior).
John, Thanks for your comment. I agree with you. Assessment programs are only useful for generating data. The really important parts come afterward – ongoing development and implementation are the keys. Dr. Smith
Posted by John Prpich wrote:
I’ve used a talent-cultural assessment tool from Talent Plus, it’s one of the better if not the best tools for assessing talent and cultural fit. The assessment is scientifically validated, so it would hold up in court. The success rate for this tool is 80% plus, very high. That being said, assessment tools have little to no value if the other processes that support ongoing development aren’t in place. It’s a waste of time to find talented employees only to have them leave your employ because they aren’t challenged or don’t have the opportunity to continue to develop their competencies.
Heather, I would follow this conversation. As you are probably gathering, assessment programs have their benefits and liabilities. I started this discussion to highlight both. Dr. Smith
Heather Ellis Judkins wrote:
I am taking graduate courses this semester and in the summer specifically geared toward assessment centers. We are required to go through an assessment center ourselves for the experience and to identify our strengths and growth opportunities. I would appreciate any feedback or experiences you would like to share in regards to this area!
Aman Khan wrote:
John, Earl,
An interesting topic! As a best practice, what tool did you find most productive and looking back most reliable for assessing the leadership talent?
Thank you.
Aman
Craig, One point that you made is particularly important – the legitimacy for the assessment programs needs to be established at the board level. I have seen such programs originated my senior management fail because people suspected their motives. Dr. Smith
Craig L. Lamiman wrote:
I have worked with Dr. Paul Connolly at Performance Programs that has several products designed to improve inter relationships with boards and executive leadership teams. His Hogan Assessment products are exceptional for pinpointing issues. A board’s recognition for improved performance is a good start toward delivering true shareholder value. It is always a challenge to achieve transformation as political forces are often counter productive when driving toward shared accountability.
Craig L. Lamiman
Amit Deokule wrote:
Respected Sir,
Greetings!!!!
I am daring to quote my opinion on this with my generally observed eyes and its post impact on my professional psychology of thinking.
Assessment of opinion should be liberal even if somebody works in Hierarchy. I have seen that management confidently specifying their approach of flat hierarchy ; has imbibed lot many obligations invariably in hierarchical manner or with their inherent power of dictatorship methodologies. So there might be happening several programs to assess the capability of management but when generalised thought process accepts the managed activities without any differed opinions , that time management will have successful story with glory in any organization. AND such kind of phenomena will keep on occurring from time to time. This is because of inconsistency in accepting other’s opinion with flexible approachability towards drafting the policies of the organizations. Cod of conduct is also one of the tools which matters a lot but whihc is being ignored little bit when core departments start bringing revenue for the growth of the company. In this scenario management does look at the beneficial factors in conscience with these department comparatively and code of conduct becomes applicable to departments which do not really carry out revenue programs but only supports the survival of the organization. Here management always begs to differ and forgets that the supportive tools or departments are the pillar for sustaining and surviving in the market smoothly.
Hence the attitude of the management really matters and it will work when people will start doing self actualization process and then according to my vision of imagination, if there will be a commitee of Board of Directors who are encouraged with the concept of respecting the flexibility apporach to an extent where to some good vision can be enlightened to maintain the self assessment programs and give lesser chance to others to pin-point vices of the management.
Writing on this is simple but bringing far superior excellence will be a matter and theory of relativity.
Sorry but I tried to put my thoughts with my own vision.
Regards,
Amit Deokule
Carter McNamara wrote:
When attempting to evolve a team “to a different culture”, e.g., in your example of when a company has grown beyond the capabilities of the founding team, I often:
1. Do a quick organizational assessment to help the team see the issue as an organizational issue, and not as a team or personal issue.
2. I present the findings in a positive light, e.g., “The organization is going throw ‘growing pains’ as a result of its success” and “it’s evolving to the next life cycle”.
3. I explain how, when an organization has grown, its internal systems need to be strengthened a bit to form a stronger foundation from which to support continued growth of the organization.
4. I reference the assessment tool (and any diagnostic model) to suggest to them which internal systems need to be changed and how. I sometimes package those changes into a “short term strategic plan.”
5. Then I suggest that that team oversee those changes.
6. Then I add that the team itself needs to evolve by clarifying:
a) Its purpose
b) How it makes decisions and solve problems
c) The roles on the team
d) How the team communicates
e) The resources that the team might need and
f) How the team should oversee the changes.
So, I often don’t refer to “a change in culture” because the client often is cynical of that phrase or is confused by it.
Also, I focus on changes in the team’s strategies, structures and practices as much as on team members’ relationship, feelings and perceptions.
Good question!
insights.cominsights.com
Wim Vanderstraeten wrote:
Hi,
I have very goof experience by using the insights model for assessing individuals, teams and organisations. The model is so easy in use en helpful due to concept of the colors and the circles.
More information you can find on:
http://www.insights.com/index.aspx
I have been using this in several type of engagement and in several industries profit and non-profit but always we got the same positive feedback from our clients.
This can help you in restructuring, aligning the organisation and the processes, putting the right individual in the right function in the organisation, … . It is still a model, but it is much easier to explain and to work with than other types of assessments and models like MBTI.
dr-smith.infodr-smith.info
Carter, Thanks for the additional comment. The ‘soft’ issues are particularly hard to deal with and success with them depends greatly on the character and disposition of the CEO and other senior team members. Some CEOs that I have worked with are very good at managing those issues while to others discussions about them are complete non-starters. Working with the latter type can be a challenge when attempting to help a team move beyond its current culture. Some time ago I wrote an article titled Battle at the Cottage Gate: http://www.dr-smith.info/battle-at-the-cottage-gate/. It deals with the cultural clash that takes place when a company grows beyond the capabilities of the founding team. Assessment programs are very good at generating data that highlight the need to resolve these culture wars – but not very good at getting the ‘traditionalists’ to march off in a new direction. How have you managed these situations? Dr. Smith
Carter McNamara wrote:
Another point that I should make is that I find that the best assessment tools tend to ask about the presence of the organization’s strategies, structures and practices (the “hard” stuff) AND about members’ personal and interpersonal feelings, beliefs and perceptions (the “soft” stuff).
I find that, with today’s strong emphasis on very humanistic values, many consultants focus almost exclusively on assesing personal and interpersonal feelings, beliefs and perceptions, and ask very little about strategies, structures and practices (i.e., they ask only about one part of the organizational system).
A few minutes ago, I got a personal email in response to my earlier posting in this forum, explaining that my “diagnostic model” approach seemed to lack “heart and passion.” I greatly respect and affirm her email to me.
However, her email might be an example of the strong emphasis and perception today that assessments and resulting plans for change should seem rich primarily in spirit, heart and passion.
I would argue that those types of plans are not likely to get at the causes (rather than the symptoms) of issues, unless those plans can also address the “business” side of the organization — its strategies, structures and practices.
Carter McNamara wrote:
Good question!
How I evolve from the assessment results to a vision for change, depends on the diagnostic model used in the project. Different models suggest different approaches. A good diagnostic model suggests:
1. What types of practices should be occurring in the organization.
2. The order and integration of those practices.
3. Standards of performance, e.g., for individuals, teams, processes and the organization.
The model also helps to:
1. Analyze results of assessments.
2. Identify which issues should be addressed by the organizational change effort.
3. Suggest what actions should be taken to address the issues.
4. Evaluate the success of the organizational change effort.
Different consultants might disagree on what constitutes a diagnostic model, based on their own personalities and expertise. Examples of diangostic models might be: strategic planning/management, open systems model, Balanced Scorecard, TQM, Business Process Re-engineering, etc. Each of these might suggest a different approach to assessment results.
I work with my clients in a very collaborative approach to identify the most suitable model, usually during the startup or the discovery phase of a project.
I write about this in my book “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development”.
John, I am neither pro or con on assessments. They certainly have their uses and their associated problems. One of the challenges is the one you mention in your last paragraph. Assessment programs are pretty good at generating data. turning that data into a strategic plan for change is always a major challenge. How have you managed that process? Dr. Smith
John Younker wrote:
Earl -
I,like yourself, have used a variety of “Assessments” (employee focused, management/leadership focused, organizational culture/climate focused, etc. etc.)
From your comments, I am not sure if your are “Pro” or “Con” on the use of web based assessment, such as might be employeed on Zoomerang or other such sites.
I have used assessment tools to “drive” (energize and focus) organizational change initiatives that were focused on a wide spectrum of subjects … team work, customer service, empowerment, race and/or gender based issues, leadership, etc., etc..
I would say, in general, they were very helpful (valuable) in stimulating an executive leadership decision to take some form of action … a motivation for change.
Assessments, in and of themselves have not, in my experience, directly affected the change, but rather, the data an assessment produced was a “catalyst for the change” that occurred as a result of a planned and focused intervention.
John
Cynthia, You raise a point that has concerned me as well. I have found the same situation can occur whenever the CEO or senior management runs the programs and follow ups. I had one CEO who thought of the assessment programs as his own personal spy network. He even tried to tag the data entries so that he could figure out who had said what in response to various questions. He was finally caught trying to break the code on a leadership assessment that, in part, focused on his leadership. The board was forced to remove him. The real shame is that there are substantial benefits that can come for assessment programs that focus on the alignment – or misalignment – of resources and programs. Organizations with experiences like the ones you mention are doomed to suffer from a lack of that wisdom. Dr. Smith
Cynthia Beck wrote:
I worked with a Vice President at a company that used, anonymous, web-based 360 assessments. The owner of this large, privately-held company was a crummy manager and difficult to work with. He regularly pitted employees against each other. When the assessment tool was used, he got a LOT of negative comments, which he blamed on the wrong people. It caused a lot of hard feelings. I’d say it didn’t work.
Anonymity works when it creates candid, constructive comments. But as with other internet anonymity, it can get mean and senseless, which hurts companies.
Carter, Thanks for the comment. If I read you correctly, you are suggesting that assessments are very useful as a catalyst for change. I agree that they provide a more systematic and detailed approach to data generation. How do you tie that data into a vision for the necessary changes? How do you use the results to form a strategic vision and plan that will guide those changes? Dr. Smith
managementhelp.orgmanagementhelp.org
Carter McNamara wrote:
I’ve used organizational, leadership and management assessment tools for many years, both for-profit and nonprofit.
I’ve changed my views a lot from the past. In the past, I focused exclusively on validity, accuracy and reliability. Today, I focus as much on relevance, utility and practicality.
I’ve found that as long as the tool identifies the most obvious issues in an organization (rather than, e.g., counting the number of computers) and can differentiate the causes from the symptoms, then I consider those tools. I usually follow quesionnaires with targeted interviews.
That approach also tends to shorten the time required to complete the tool, which is very important considering how busy many people consider themselves to be.
I’ve found that one of the most important outcomes from assessments is that it focuses and mobilizes the organization to undertake changes. I’ve also found that the tools tend to focus people away from blaming each other to instead be focused on the practices that are asked about in the tools.
It’s very important that recommendations be generated very soon after the assessment — and, like the tools themselves, the recommendations don’t have to address every issue found in the tool.
I do use online tools as much as possible because they’re very accessible for most people, respondents can use the tools at their convenience, and it’s easier for me to collect and analyze results. However, it’s surprising how many people still are reluctant to “go online.”
(One of my biggest frustrations is when consultants don’t do systematic, explicit assessments at all, and rather just go with whatever the client reports are the issues.)
I’ve listed several online tools for for-profits and nonprofits at
http://www.managementhelp.org/org_perf/org_perf.htm#anchor984160