INTERVENTION PURPOSE

INTERVENTION PURPOSE

After much discussion, between myself and the Organization, (see chapter 7 for detail), the agreed purpose for the intervention became: ‘To transform communication and cooperation between individuals in all areas of the Organization thereby enhancing its inner health, cohesion and overall

effectiveness’ (see attached performance agreement). It was agreed by the Organization and myself that to bring about this transformation would most likely involve: a redistribution of power; a new organizational structure; new strategies and new reward and remuneration systems.

Stated Aims of the Intervention

The agreed joint assessable objectives for the Intervention then became: ‘to develop and implement a program over the next 12 months or so that will develop the following:’

1. Written personal and professional development plans for each participant; aligned with the respective:

2. Written performance management agreements between the various leaders and their team members; that are attuned with:

3. The written mission statement and goals and objectives for each section where participants serve; that are derived from:

4. The Organization's written mission statement and strategic plan: that will be congruent with:

5. The Organization's written Vision statement, principles and culture as determined by the leadership and developed by the Organization as a whole;

And to:

6. Measurably improve, through performance surveys completed by participants, their competency in the areas of: Interpersonal

Communication; People Management; Leadership; and their ability to Manage Conflict and Tension as it arises in a civil and dignified manner; thereby:

7. Enhancing participants' ability to communicate openly and honestly with each other;

8. Developing a sense of ownership of, responsibility for, and loyalty towards the Organization as a whole in its employees;

9. Transform the workplace into an open trusting environment; improving the coherence and effectiveness of the Organization as a whole; and improving the overall level of satisfaction and fulfilment gained by employees from their work at [the Organization].

After reaching agreement on these points, the above document was then signed by the Managing Director and myself. Although the first five objectives play a significant part in the Intervention itself, such as aligning the

Organization’s subsystems around a common Vision, which is crucial to achieving congruency of the Organization overall, they are not really central objectives to the research as the remaining four are. Again this is a

consequence of doing research in the real world and reflects the combined goals of the Organization and the research. Therefore significantly less space

will be devoted to discussing the first five objectives compared to the last four as they are more relevant to the research.

Focus of the Intervention

The way I attempted to bring about these agreed changes to the Organization was to focus the intervention on transforming the way individuals relate to:

1 themselves; 2 each other; 3 their family; 4 their world

5 their spirit / context

These 5 objectives are guided by the complexity theory of change which assumes that change on the deep structure level will manifest as the need for radical change on the surface structure. Of course, there are other issues relevant to the intervention not listed above such as the MD’s authoritarian management style, the transition drama and the exploitation vs conservation struggle; these and the 5 objectives of the purpose form the basis of the discussion in chapter 7.

Thus the Aim of Intervention became: To bring about lasting change on the deep structure level of individual psyche (relationship to self, partner & family, world and spirit), through increasing connectivity on these levels, thereby allowing a ‘revolutionary transformation’ in the quality of communication and relationships on the more surface structure levels of the Organization’s culture to emerge from the deep structure work.

DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM: Where is the organization poised ?

My primary focus prior to undertaking an intervention is twofold: diagnosing the problem, and obtaining leadership commitment for the intervention. Several months - from the time I was awarded the contract to do the intervention in February 1993 until the performance agreement between myself and the Organization was signed in May 1993 (see appendix 2) - were spent diagnosing the problem and obtaining leadership commitment for the intervention. For a detailed discussion on this see chapter 7 (Intervention

Discussion and Evaluation). Diagnosing the problem correctly and assessing the depth of commitment of the Organization's leadership to the Intervention enable me to ascertain at what depth the Intervention should be focussed: at the surface, mid or deep structure of the Organization's psyche. This is the most critical factor to the success of an Intervention because it allows the matching of expectations with the outcomes being aimed at.

Soft Skills

It was agreed that the main shortcoming in the Organization’s culture was a lack of what the Karpin Report, Enterprising Nation - The Industry Task Force

On Leadership And Management Skills (1995), describes as ‘soft’ skills - also

often described as people skills. ‘These so-called ‘soft’ skills include the ability to communicate, … have strong elements of self-knowledge, … [and] are actually quite deep and sophisticated abilities’ (ibid:25 italics added). Increased ‘self-knowledge’ is a key factor in improving ‘soft’ skills. The Karpin Report quoted the Boston Consulting Group on ‘soft’ skills:

In a capabilities-based organization, a senior manager will require an additional range of ‘soft’ skills (a misnomer, surely, since ‘soft’ skills are typically much harder to master than the so called ‘hard’ skills) involved in motivating staff, creating co-operation, redefining organizational values and beliefs, and re-aligning management focus. These skills will place a premium on the leadership qualities of a senior manager (ibid: 25 italics added).

It is interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that in describing ‘the gaps between the current and desired position on each of [ten] major dimensions the Task Force considers relevant to the economic future of Australia’, ‘soft’ skills were identified as one of, if not the, major gap to be bridged if Australian managers are to reach a competency level of 80% of world best practice by the year 2010 (Karpin Report Executive Summary 1995: 7-9). The Report itself said: ‘A consistent theme running through many of the research projects is that Australian managers need much better ‘people’ skills’ (1995:25). This Organization was no exception in its early days.

If individuals in the Organization are exposed to a training program using the Complexity Theory of Change that is powerful enough to bring about

meaningful change in those individuals, by way of improved soft skills, then the organization’s culture will undergo a revolutionary transformation as a result of the changes to the individual psyches. This hypothesis, consistent with the Complexity Theory of Change, also explains why the training program was aimed primarily at bringing about individual change which, in turn, would bring about a revolutionary transformation in the Organization’s structure, strategy and power distributions and its culture.

Leadership Commitment

‘Any type of organizational transformation has to have the wholehearted support of the people at the top’ (Peck 1993:317); see also Kilman (1989:8), McDougall (1993:4), Goodstein & Warner Burke (1991:14), Schneider,

Gunnarson & Niles-Jolley (1994:18) and Zeira & Avedisian (1989:33-34). However, the HRM, especially if they are an ‘evangelistic … top executive who strongly believes in the change’ (ibid), which this one was but just below top executive level, is often the way ‘in’ to the all important relationship with the people at the top. Therefore I worked at establishing good rapport in my relationship with the HRM because without it my path to successful problem diagnosis and planning of the Intervention would have been blocked before it began. For a detailed discussion on diagnosing the problem and obtaining leadership commitment to the Intervention once again see chapter 7.