Pactify - 1 page slides

1 page slides
–
upload February 2018

Pactify is a “management system” to
organise work for more engagement and
cooperation
-2-
© 2018 Pactify Management. All rights reserved.

Pactify … what is it exactly ?
-3-© 2018 Pactify Management. All rights reserved.
Pactify implements a developmental process
(a way of working) …
… that makes a group or an organisation learn
to solve problems more effectively …
… with gradually decreasing levels of control
in how work is managed …
… by organising problem solving where the
problems really lie and among those that are
directly impacted …
… and by enhancing behaviour (more
engagement& cooperation), while& through
this problem solving (=“in the action”)
What it is NOT
• A training/ coaching program
• A closed end, single project
• A “plug-and-play” change concept
• Escalation approach to solve problems
higher than where they actually lie
• An approach that keeps the levels of
control fixed/ static, regardless of the
complexity that needs to be solved
• A belief that behaviour “is a given”
• A belief that behaviour change can be
commanded/ “educated” or that it will
happen spontaneously

Who we are
-4-
• Lic., Applied Economics
• AMP at Harvard Business School
• Vice President AT Kearney
• Partner at Deloitte Consulting
Bart Vanderhaegen
Founder
Yvo Vandeweyer
Associate partner
• Civil engineer in physics, MBA
• Consultant at The Boston Consulting Group
• Speaker on topics such as engagement, cooperation, flow, …

5 thoughts about engagement, for any manager:
-5-
Don’t “just” assume that your
people are engaged
• Gallup studies: 87% not engaged at work
• Engagement doesn’t come
spontaneously& you can loose it easily
You need engagement more than you may think
• It drives many crucial behaviours such as: curiosity, going the extra mile, cooperation, …
• Even more needed when business becomes more complex
Growing engagement
should be a continuous
management priority
1
2
3
Today, you tend to grow engagement in the
wrong way: “outside” the real action, real work
• You do not create lasting engagement from
– sending people to trainings, coachings, team buildings
– trying to “communicate people into engagement”
Only way to grow engagement is “IN
the action”: in & during the real work
• Add autonomy to the work
• Practise flow& group flow (cooperation)
• Gradually, so it sticks!
5
4

-6-
… defining strategies,
implementing new rules,
structures, KPI’s, roles,
systems, projects, …
Much more important than
… is to create the
engagement and
cooperation … SO THAT those
new strategies, rules,
structures, KPIs,
systems, projects, …
ACTUALLY DO increase
company performance !

-7-
Speed, excellence, agility, resilience …
… in any transformation is most directly driven by the combined
“willingness to cooperate” of all contributors
I.e. the willingness to engage and go beyond their individual
role/ tasks/ agenda/ KPIs/ ... for the entire journey
PROBLEM: willingness to cooperate is LOW when …
1... someone else has the final responsibility (& can be blamed)
2... your contribution in the end result is not visible
3... you cannot freely contribute to shaping the solution
4... you are only asked to implement, not to shape it
5... your contribution is either too difficult or too easy
SOLUTION:
Organise the work so none of the 5 factors can ever become
significant

-8-
Don’t go for TOP DOWN
Don’t go for BOTTOM UP either …
… go for COOPERATION :
- Where the top cooperates with the bottom
- AND the bottom cooperates with the top

-9-
Your competitors can … copy your idea’s
… headhunt your people away
… use the same consultants
… invest in the same technology
But there is 1 advantage they CAN NEVER copy:
the engagement& cooperation inside your organisation
So, investing in engagement& cooperation brings 2
things:
• More performance and satisfaction at work
• But also, a more defendable competitive advantage

-10-
The problem with 99% of management
books and MBA courses:
When people are disengaged, the text-book
theories can’t explain behaviour and thus
performance anymore
The other problem we have: 87% of people are
not engaged at work (Gallup studies)
They do not take disengagement into account.
(or simplify that it should be “solved” on the side through coaching)

The miracle of cooperation (“1+1=3”) happens
whenever 4 things are shared in a team:
Shared
goals
Shared
accountability
Shared transparency
Shared action
-11-
The pyramid of cooperation
• All aiming for the same thing
• The same goal both among peers as well as “top vs. bottom”
• Start from any problem/ opportunity that “ties us together”
• There is not only 1 to blame if we fail
• Able to take decisions against individual interests
- Being ready to “take one for the team”
• Know how others contribute& dare to ask for help
• 1 version of the real progress (in real time)
• From everyone’s pen, not 1 “reporter” role only
• Feedback “from the inside” that fuels motivation
• No splitting up of work& people all the time
• Help the others in their part of the work
1
2
3
4

-12-
and like any ”group behaviour”:
you can learn but also unlearn it.
Be it: preparing& negotiation a
big business deal, launching a
new product on the market,
making a financial consolidation,
responding to a competitor’s
move …
Issue #1:
Today’s organisations favour the unlearning more than the learning of “how to cooperate?”
• More separate structures (silo’s) with more separate goals, plans, systems, KPIs, …
• Less and less transparency/ insights/ relationships/ alignment across those structures
• Less and less time to “try” to find better ways to cooperate
Issue #2:
Today’s business complexity requires us to only learn even faster “how to cooperate?”
Cooperation is a group behaviour …

Well, to start with, we seem to be separating people
all the time in an organisation:
-13-
Why is cooperation so difficult in
companies ?
Assigning them into separate
Giving them separate
Measuring them on separate
Letting them work in separate
Putting them into separate
Asking for separate
…
departments, divisions
roles, responsibilities, targets
key performance indicators
systems
corners of the building
reporting and presentations
…

The miracle of cooperation (“1+1=3”)
is NO “blah blah”, BUT hard reality & hard $$$
-14-
The proof (case of 2 person cooperation):
Person #1
Person #2
Output produced
if both worked on
their own
Extra output
from one person
through help
from the other
Total team output
“3”
(in output)
“1 + 1”
(in time/ energy/ cost)

We define 4 progressive stages of cooperation … in the same team
-15-
• Do not really know
each other
A troupe
• Have basic knowledge
on each other
A group
• Know each other well
A team
• Know& trust each other
A leadership
team
Cooperation (“Group Flow”)
“Working Apart Together”
• Almost no exchange/
interaction
• Team members do not
know what the others
do
• Inform each other on
what part of the work
they do
• No further interaction
than informing
• Coordinate how the
different separate
pieces of work come
together
• In case of coordination
issue: they escalate
upwards
• Make progress as 1 entity,
not as separate actors
• Help others on their parts of
the work
• Make difficult decisions
together (solve problems
instead of escalating them)
• Reject any shared goal • Acknowledge a shared
goal
• Formally align to a
shared goal
• Actively contribute to
developing the shared goal
The same strategy/ idea’s/ goals, with the same people, skills& competences
have very different actual outcomes … depending on the actual stage of cooperation

We define 4 progressive stages of cooperation … in the same team
-16-
• Not willing nor
capable to identify
a shared business
problems
• No process of
interacting on
shared problems
A troupe A group A team
A leadership
team
Behaviour in
how business
problems are
tackled& solved
Characteristics
of the business
solutions they
find
• Top down “general” solution (only
directional, not specific)
• In reality (“in the action”): several different,
individual solutions
• Solutions often too much “person-related
wishing”
• Capable of
identifying a shared
problem
• Maintain a process
to exchange info,
but staying “on
topic” long enough
is a challenge
• Systematically work
through an agenda of
shared problems
• Coordinate idea’s
and solutions, fairly
focused
• Escalate when they
are “stuck”
Behaviour of the
hierarchically
higher ones
• Relies on his/her
power to get to a
solution
• Participates in the
info sharing but
relies on power to
get to a solution
• Gives autonomy to
define solutions but
decides in case of
escalation
• Systematically work
through an agenda …
• … in transparency,
acting as 1 entity
• Use autonomy,
helping each other to
avoid having to
escalate
• More refined solutions (better match for the
real problem, in scope/ time/ effectiveness)
• More content based solutions, less person
• Acts as part of the
group, not as outsider
(reads, watches,
listens & acts along)
• More adoption of
them “in the action”,
because of more
engagement &
cooperation
• Solutions may include
“multiple” perspectives
(but no guarantee)

-17-
The drama of top down management these days
Markets are more
competitive and/ or complex
You place higher and
higher demands on
your people
You do not really help them
to succeed, because you rely
on the fact that your people
“have the responsibility, the
role, the KPIs, incentives, …”
to deliver
In reality, 2 things tend to happen:
1) people succeed less and less (as
work is really getting more complex)
2) they get more disengaged
because of that
You convince yourself that
those people are not
“capable” enough
You fire and
replace people
from time to time
1
2
3
4
0
The fatal people
assumption of top
down management

4 issues with top-down management that impact
both performance ánd engagement
-18-
Issues with top down
• Most solutions invented at the top
– Limited freedom below
Consequence
• Too far from the real action to fully
capture everything for an optimal
solution
• Less engaging for those below
• Mostly KPI’s to manage performance
– “What gets measured gets done”
• Less insight in how work is really
done, and thus less support/ help
– A KPI ≠ the real action/ complexity
• We separate almost everything
– Separate structures, responsibilities,
roles, systems, policies, KPIs, …
• Too little cooperation
1
2
3
• We compensate with communication
– Trying to “communicate people into
engagement”
• Still top-down, “not in the action/
not experienced”, so not engaging
4

-19-
Everything a company wants to
achieve or develop should be …
tried, learnt, practised, evaluated,
re-tried, perfectioned …
… IN the daily action
… NOT in the training room

On an average career, we
spend
more time
“IN the action”
than “outside” of it.
-20-
500 x
Doing the job we do/
participating in
change projects.
Be in training/
coaching/
communication/ team
building activities
Why any new behaviour (leadership, cooperation,
goal focus, …) should be learnt & practised “in the action”

When work disengages people, we can tackle this in 2 ways :
-21-
Coach/ support
the people
Change the work
and how we do it
FACT: where do we actually spend our time in a 10 yr. period:
~40 hours
~19.200 hours
x 480
Being in coaching/
training/ communication
sessions
Doing the
work we do
QUESTION: where to REALLY solve the engagement issue?
ANSWER:
OR

Where do we spend our collective time/ energy/ intelligence ?
-22-© 2018 Pactify Management. All rights
Make new
rules
Implement new
systems
Launch extra
communication
Make new
roles
Create extra
structures
Write
reports
Define,
measure& track
KPIs
Define extra governance
(who can decide what?)
The “periphery” of
the real action
(“needed but
insufficient”)
The REAL ACTION
The problems/
opportunities and HOW
they are solved/ tackled
HOW: in cooperation/ or
“Working Apart Together”
Define new vision, mission,
strategy
Design a
new org
chart

-23-
Today’s business problems (or opportunities)
(=“How to create value in more complex markets?”) will …
… NOT get solved by … creating a new department for it
… making only 1 person responsible for it
… defining a new KPI for it
… changing your measurement systems
… designing new rules to deal with it
… BUT by learning to cooperate …WHILE solving that problem
= learning “IN THE ACTION”
= by doing/ trying it long
enough !
= learning to
… get to know each other (those affected by the problem)
… develop a shared focus on solving it
… communicate, listen, align, be transparent
… decide as 1 team
… help each other in their parts of the solution

-24-
• Top down change programs every 5 years
• Annual performance reviews
• Job rotations / promotions
• Engagement surveys / training / coaching
• …
Much more
engaging AND
productive than:
… is to set-up &
operate a system
where: • You have all your people participate for 10 to 20 %
of their time in problem solving processes …
• … continuously (like “business-as-usual”)
• … on problems that, when solved, would make the
organisation better off
• … with evolving “freedom” for people on how the
solution looks like
• … in transparency and in cooperation, focused on
helping everyone to get better

You can STOP doing
-25-
© 2018 Pactify Management. All rights reserved
engagement surveys
engagement trainings
engagement coachings
engagement communications
…
… once you organise work in a way that people find
engagement IN THE ACTION (= IN the work itself)
… by organising problem solving (what to improve and how
to improve it) lower than “usually” in a hierarchy
… and helping people to succeed (i.e. to cooperate): by
systematically organising (and coaching) the action this way,
so the action itself provides the learning curve for (i) using
autonomy, (ii) communicating in a goal focused way, (iii)
being transparent, (iv) experiencing flow and (v) group flow

Why is autonomy so important to get cooperation ?
-26-
One person
doing 1
simple task
• With multiple requirements to satisfy
• In a complex, changing environment
• With people not yet knowing each other
A team taking
on a complex
challenge
Effectiveness of “control”
Necessity to “give autonomy”
BUT, it’s only a necessary, not a sufficient condition!

-27-
The real reason why you have to give
more autonomy to people:
Not so much because it creates more engagement
• However this is already a nice bonus ;-)
BUT especially because: when people create solutions in
autonomy, these solutions are developed …
• … with far more speed, agility, cross-functional insights,
transparency, alignment, resilience, cooperation, …
– … compared to the solutions you would want to push
down/ communicate/ control/ … upon them
… and therefore, those solutions are much better
answers to the complexity of business today !

Flow: 4 simple and train-able(!) conditions to achieve it !
-28-
Perceived skill
Perceived
difficulty
Boredom
Frustration
All actions have clear
goals
You capture feedback
WHILE you act (to focus
or steer)
Balance between difficulty and skill for
the activity
1
2
3
Autonomy !
0
When the work you do meets these 3 conditions, you don’t need any carrot& stick,
will perform better and be much more engaged

“You can discover more about a person in
an hour of play than in a year of
conversation”
-29-
-Unknown-
Let’s organise work for MORE PLAY …
• More autonomy& transparency, to get more doing, trying, … & cooperating
… ánd for LESS CONVERSATION …
• Less time on explaining strategy, rules, roles, metrics, reporting, …

-30-
No matter how high you are up in the
organisation, it’s always very useful to …
… spend LESS time on
the “high level” stuff
For example:
• The big strategic directions
• The big company milestones
• Overly synthesized reports
• Huge piles of data
• General questions like:
– “Did we reach GO LIVE yet?”
– “Is the status still green?”
– “Are we on budget?”
• …
… and MORE time on
the “detailed” stuff
For example:
• Concrete progress& plans
• How that progress was made
• Who contributed to it
• How teams found alignment
– … or not
• How teams help each other
– … or not
• …

Sustainable engagement& cooperation
is found …
… NOT by talking/ coaching/ educating people into it
• Not sustainable, at best only a temporary positive effect
… BUT BY bringing teams “in the action”, in a very specific way:
•…around initiatives that “make sense” for the organisation (performance, …)
•…while helping each other to ideate, align, decide, execute& realise them …
•…with gradually less “control”, to allow for more “autonomy& flow” in the doing
•…SO THAT they experience more positively/ strongly and structurally how …
– … the team and themselves have contributed to it
-31-

Our approach for more engagement& cooperation … in the action
Rumination
•Info exchange
•Ideation
Do Al
“Documented”
“Aligned”
Do Al
Do Al
Agenda setting
•Documentation
- Goal/ plan/ budget
•Problem solving
•Alignment
De
“Decided”
De
De
Decision
making
Im
“Implemented”
Im
Im
Execution
•Milestones/ actions
-Planning& tracking
•Status / steering
•Impact tracking
Skills
practised
“in the
action”
The mandate
•Topics/ questions/ problems
(“Where& how can performance go
up& how to cooperate to get it?”)
•The team& autonomy given
?
?
?
?
?
Where& how can
performance go
up & how to
cooperate to get
it?
(on topic ABC)
?
?
•Walk each others’ shoes
1. Communication
•In a project language
•From your own pen
2. Transparency
•Accepting& using it
3. Autonomy
4. “Flow”
5. “Group Flow”

The components of our approach
Overall goal: Learn to find more cooperation, while doing, “in the action”
• While also finding the minimum level of “control” to so do ….
-33-
The start: A mandate with a description of 3 things:
… the business question to solve (in cooperation)
• Main question& break-down questions (from difficult to easier)
• Questions not leading to opinions only but to initiatives to proof that opinion together
& the level of autonomy to do so
… the team who is asked to do it
… in a systematic to optimally learn
Repetition
• Fixed meeting process/ fixed participation
Feedback
• Platform to make progress transparent
A facilitator (“PMO+”, not to bring solutions)
• Helps team to solve Q they are asked to solve
• Helps “skill building/ behaviour change”
“By doing it” =“in the action”
• Tackling a real problem, not going to a training
• Using the autonomy to think/ try/ do/ evaluate
• Taking the pen yourself
… to create context to learn to build new skills/
change behaviour … “in the action”
To communicate
• … to “walk each other’s
shoes” on a same bus. topic
To become goal& progress
focused
• Go from idea -> Objective&
plan -> Alignment ->
Execution
… and the potential to scale up beyond 1 effort
Building the network of mandates
• Transformation of way of working
To develop transparency
• … on how progress is made
and who contributed to it
To deal with autonomy
• … up to knowing how much
can be given & accepted
To experience “Flow”& “Group Flow”
• Develop & capture real progress, & using it as fuel for more
• Steerco’s/ participation in team meetings
• On actual progress … AND how it’s being created ?
(learning effect on behaviour)
… with tailored stakeholder interactions

The approach in our system (I/II): the problem solving process
The problem
to be solved
The team
?
?
?
?
?
?
Do Al De
Do Al De
Do Al De
Im
Im
Im
Free ideation, info
sharing, analysis
(“rumination”
- noted down)
Idea owner gates
Execution
process
The mandate
(question, …) ?&
The PMO+ process
1 2 3
4
Idea ownership

Our system (II/II): ensure an evolutionary and growing portfolio of
problems& problem solving teams
-35-
The
start
The portfolio, at any
time, of “problem
solving processes”
# of problem solving processes initiated1
Actual progress realized
• Actions, milestones, goals reached
2
Level of collective engagement and cooperation3
Our system allows get a significant share of people in our problem solving processes.
Gradually more, and with teams& processes becoming more and more permanent.
Processes that solve problems and thus create value, while maintaining and growing engagement and
cooperation “in the action” (through –permanent and evolutionary - learning experiences in
communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow)

The learning is managed, supported,
steered by the 4 P’s
A project
language
A processA PMO+
A platform
The Pactify “system” to drive behavior change … “in the action”
While& through problem
solving: 5 learning curves
1)
Communication
2)
Transparency
3) Autonomy
(accepting
ánd giving)
4) “Flow”
5)
“Group Flow”
Team mandate to
solve a business
problem in
cooperation, with
some degree of
autonomy
1
2
3

For any transformation to be successful, 2 things need to be
tackled simultaneously: problem solving & behaviour change
… and the “classical” methods don’t really allow this …
Problem solving
•Finding a solution to a business problem
•Be it on strategy (what to do?) or implementation
(how to do it?)
-37-
1
2
Behaviour change (the people part)
The engagement& cooperation to enable
that the solution is actually …
•… found& aligned together / implemented
effectively/ sustained& continuously
improved/ leveraged elsewhere, …
&
How we do this “classically”:
•Diagnostic (with people involvement)
•Solution design (top down: decisions, roles,
rules, KPIs)
•Implementation (top down governance)
How we do this “classically”:
•Coaching “out of the action” (= out of the
problems to solve) … one-off (not
sustainably)

Pactify positioning versus “management consulting” and “coaching”
• Problem solving
– Finding a solution to a business
problem
– Be it on strategy (what to do?) or
implementation (how to do it?)
• Behaviour change
– The engagement& cooperation so
that the solution is actually …
• … found together
• … implemented effectively
• … sustained
• … continuously improved
• … leveraged elsewhere
-38-
Business model focus:
Management
consulting
firms
Coaching
firms
Even when working without external support,
organisations find it difficult to balance both aspects
1
2

“Transparency 2.0”: Real-time insight, in 1 place on goals and how
progress is made, from everyone’s pen
Transparency 2.0 =
-39-
Final
goal
Actions
• Who does what (to get to the milestones)
Milestones
• Problems to be solved
• Decisions to be taken
• Deliverables to be achieved
Status ?

Pactify platform
-40-
SCREENSHOTS

Pactify platform
-41-
SCREENSHOTS

-42-
SCREENSHOTS
Pactify platform: “Transparency 2.0” is continuously trained “in the action”

Pactify platform: “My Progress”: everyone’s individual actions/
milestones in the program - emailed weekly
-43-
SCREENSHOTS

Pactify platform: “The network” : showing the real cooperation
(opposite of “Working Apart Together” )
-44-
SCREENSHOTS

Pactify platform
-45-
SCREENSHOTS

Pactify platform: ensure that all actions are “in Flow”:
not too easy, nor too difficult
-46-
SCREENSHOTS

Holy grail domain of
cooperation
In what type of work can we cooperate more … with what impact ?
-47-
Type
of
work
“Business
as usual”
(= daily
repeated
activities)
“Problem
solving”
(= improving
something,
from idea to
result)
What you can do to cooperate in that work
Being sociable&
communicative
(not avoiding
interaction)
Sharing
information
(e.g. between
departments)
Being transparent
on what you do &
how (on your
actions &decisions)
Helping others
with actions
beyond your
responsibility
Sacrificing own
interests/ agenda
for those of the
team
Impact of
cooperation on
team performance
Impact of more
cooperation
on company performance
Underlying type of “team”
“a team” “a leadership team”“a troupe” “a group”
The “classical”
domain where we try
to get more
cooperation

A vital question for any organisation in today’s environment
-48-
How do we get more cooperation …
… without having to use more control
or power to make that happen ?

Companies can solve problems in 2 very different ways
-49-
Driven by hierarchy/ power Driven by “Group Flow”
The solution = very close to the one
proposed by the person with the most
power/ highest position
1 2
= essentially, at any level & on any topic,
the questions: “What should we do?”,
“Why should we do it and how?”
What the
solutions
look like
The solution = a broad combination of
contributions from many people, not
necessarily proportional to the level of
power they have
Those who did not contribute to the
solution, show less engagement in
implementing/ adopting it
Impact on
the
behaviour
Getting the autonomy to contribute
together to a solution drives more
engagement and cooperation (even
long after the solution is defined)
If 1 or only a few define a solution, it
may not be the most optimal, especially
when complexity on the outside grows
Impact on
performance
More people, with different (relevant)
perspectives, can ensure a more
balanced and sustainable solution

Is there a way to simultaneously solve business problems while
building skills& changing behaviour IN and while doing so ?
All 3 “classical” approaches work in disconnect with each other
“Classical” providers
Classical way: approached in the
periphery (not “in the action”): stand-
alone trainings, not IN& through the
real, actual problems that
need to be
solved
Classical way: top down, by deconstructing the question (= the problem
to solve), making hypotheses/ validating and deciding … at the top
Building of skills
(strategic/ executional)
1 Behaviour change
(engagement/cooperation/ leadership)
2
Business problem solving
(strategic/ operational)3
Classical way: approached in
the periphery” (not “in the action”):
stand-alone, personality focused
guidance, not IN the real action,
not IN and through the actual
problems that need
to be solved
?

The Pactify process allows to learn to let “skill building”,
“behaviour change”& “problem solving” become 1& the same thing
-51-
Pactify approach
“Classical” providers
Classical way: top down, by deconstructing the question (= the problem
to solve), making hypotheses/ validating and deciding … at the top
Building of skills
(strategic/ executional)
1 2 Behaviour change
(engagement/cooperation/ leadership)
Business problem solving
(strategic/ operational)3
Process, Platform& PMO+
Overall transparency on progress, with frequent feedback
Learning new skills by doing,
“in the action”: group problem
solving (ideation, alignment, goal
setting, making progress
transparent vs goals)
Learning new
behaviours by doing,
“in the action”: accept autonomy,
cooperate (listen, align, help, develop a
balanced, shared agenda of topics&
solutions from a given mandate), arbitrate
in case of conflict, …
The mandate: (i) the problem, (ii) the team to
solve it, (iii) the autonomy they get to do so
“Rumination” (going from troupe to group,
allowing everyone to get grip on the mandate)
Classical way: approached in the
periphery (not “in the action”): stand-
alone trainings, not IN& through the
real, actual problems that
need to be
solved
Classical way: approached in
the periphery” (not “in the action”):
stand-alone, personality focused
guidance, not IN the real action,
not IN and through the actual
problems that need
to be solved
Create a continuous flow of problems/
solutions from the mandate

Universal behavioural physics law for managers
The amount of behaviour change you get from your people …
… is directly proportional to …
…the amount of behaviour change by yourself
P.S.: works in both ways (positive versus negative behaviour change)
-52-
• More engagement
• More cooperation
• More listening& more transparency
• Higher personal investment in
sustaining& supporting the autonomy
you give
“Communicating
vessels”

When we get to behaviour, it starts to getting interesting
A vision& mission
A strategy
Organisation structures
Rules for how to work
• Via processes& systems
Actual behaviour
• Performing actions
• Achieving milestones
Job role descriptions
6 things you need in a successful
organisation:
1
2
3
4
5
2 “special” aspects to this:
Logical,
rational
steps
Not so
logical, not so
linear, more
complex step
Needed
but
insufficient
to
explain& drive
performance
Essential to explain&
drive performance
(“Performance is what it is
because people do what
they do”)
6

6 progressive levels of cooperation with someone on your team
… all “practise-able” every day, every next meeting
Give your time to listen to his/ her work or idea’s
Think about some idea’s that may help him/ her
Give your vote of support to an idea that comes from him/ her
Encourage him/ her while they try to make progress
Contribute through actions that help him/ her in making progress
Engage in a deeper debate to strengthen his/ her idea
1
2
3
4
5
6

-55-
Knowing all the
questions to be
solved…
… and always
having a solution,
for everyone who
is impacted
… immediately
3 tactics to get away from “top down behaviour”, each with
progressively positive impact on engagement& cooperation
Knowing all the
questions to be
solved…
… but allowing
those who are
impacted to solve
them
… immediately
Knowing all the
questions to be
solved…
… but allowing
those who are
impacted to solve
them
… by giving them
time and help to
do so
Asking teams to
come up with the
questions to be
solved…
… and allowing those
who are impacted to
solve them
… by giving them
time and help to
do so
1
Impact on the behaviour in finding& implementing the “solutions”:
The stereotype
top down manager
0
2
3

-56-
A job
description
• Short, so mainly “general” descriptions (10-15 lines)
• Intended as guideline but never really consulted “in the job”
The
reality
of
performing
a job these
days
• Trying many different things, of which many fail
• Making only slow progress in the beginning
• Fighting many long standing debates on opinions/ views
• Being in continuous need of new idea’s
• Searching continuously for (more) cooperation
• While the environments changes& complexity tends to grow
When is a job description “enough” and when not ?
A
B
When work is simple, you can rely on “A” only to get people “to do their job”
When work is complex, “A” doesn’t serve us anymore, we then need to
organise ongoing learning while doing, helping each other from top to
bottom, in order to master our jobs & continuously get better in it

The only real and effective solution to any business problem
(be it around efficiency, effectiveness, digitalization, …)
… is new, sustainable behaviour
(= people/ teams doing something differently vs. before)
-57-
So, organisations need to become better and better at changing
behaviour … and can do so by changing their “toolkit for
behaviour change”:
“Classical” toolbox for behaviour change
(less effective when complexity grows)
“New” toolbox for behaviour change
(very effective when complexity grows)

The actual solution to a problem depends on where you solve it
-58-
1 CEO + n-1
2
A business problem/ opportunity ( )
where n-3 & n-4 is implied
Now, when you solve the problem ( ) … the solutions you’ll get …
at … are more rules/ roles/ KPIs that only create the perception of a solution
at … is actual and new behavior, and that behavior IS the solution
1
2

What’s the correct curve (for your organisation/ entity/ unit) ?
-59-
100%
control
100%
autonomy
Level of autonomy
to “solve problems” in your organisation
Today’s
situation
Organisational
performance
(problem solving
performance, engagement,
agility, resilience, …)
Very
weak
Very
strong
Control Autonomy
?
?
?
How many different answers from different people do you get?

How does behavioural performance change when you change the
control vs. autonomy balance in an organisation ?
3 tendencies related to performance, when “moving the control/ autonomy needle”
-60-
100%
control
100%
autonomy
The balance control vs autonomy in “how problems
should/ can be solved” in the organisation
Today’s
situation
Performance of
behavioural response
(what people do and
how to solve problems)
Very
weak
Very
strong
The “uncanny valley”: a little more
autonomy feels weird to both
manager and team, and has
negative impact on performance
Performance improves
significantly when autonomy
increases significantly (and
enough time to cope with it)
Performance tends to
go down when
structurally increasing
the levels of control
1
3
2
Control Autonomy

For EVERY manager, there is ALWAYS a way …
to “put autonomy at work” …
so that it drives idea’s and realisations (from your people)
that satisfy 4 conditions at the same time:
1. Even you like the idea (without having found it yourself)
2. The idea doesn’t even interfere with the stuff you still want to control
3. The idea and it’s realisation creates some more engagement in your teams
4. The idea and it’s realisation drives performance up
-61-

-62-
Roles &
rules
… “only”
allow to … check/ control if something is done
(according to what’s asked/ prescribed)
Autonomy
& flow
… allows to … outperform/ excel at what you do
… solve really, really complex problems
… find engagement while doing what you do
… find cooperation with those who are in it too
We have a lot of “A” already, and even more& more of it, isn’t it time
to consider how to re-balance for “a bit more of B” ?
Time for some re-balancing in the way are organise work?
A
B

Debunking some of the ”engagement myths” we still hold on to
-63-
“Job rotation”
Why these things often
DON’T increase engagement
• Engagement is found (or not) at the “behaviour
level” (=what you do and how), not at a higher,
more abstract “job content” level
• Job rotation is typically decided for you, not by
you (= often a bit too much top down)
What to do instead to
increase engagement
• Give individuals/ teams a
problem to solve, and some
autonomy to do so …THEY
will find their behaviour that
is both engaging&
performant
“Give people
more
appreciation”
(on the job they
are doing)
• “Flow” theory: the longer we do the same thing,
the easier it gets and thus the more boring it
becomes. This “systemic” boredom can not be
countered sustainably by more (of the same)
appreciation
• Continuously tailor the
“difficulty” to the “skill” of
employees/ teams, to allow
for maximum time “in flow”
“Communicate
more”
(from the top to
the bottom)
• Communication can have a disengaging, top
down effect on people: “We tell you what we
have decided that you need to do from now”
• More transparency on
behaviour (= what is done&
how) … from everyone (top
vs bottom / left vs right)

In organisations, there are things that divide and things that
unite people
The things that may divide people
-64-
The things that can unite people
• Stating individual opinions
• A new rule, a new command/ order
• A new role description
• An new KPI measurement
• Solving a problem together
• The transparency that things are moving
forward
• The recognition for how you did something
Overall, company performance WILL increase if we learn to do more
things that unite than things that divide ….

-65-
The “goldilocks conditions” to make
autonomy really work
The “goldilocks conditions” in science: human life on a planet
can ONLY happen when the planet temperature is “just right”:
• Not too low (planet too far from its star)
• And also not too high (planet too close to its star)
It’s safe to assume that anything that is both beautiful ánd complex
(take human life) will need to meet the “goldilocks conditions”
Let’s apply to another thing of beauty: “making autonomy work”
The manager’s
fear to give
autonomy
The % extra autonomy that the manager gives
0% 10% 20% 50% 100%
0%
100%
“Just
right”
“Too much at once …”“Too
little to
notice
…”
= e.g. manager
taking 20% less
decisions (of the
same type)
himself

-66-
To get down to REAL cooperation, you need
to come together, but with a specific focus:
… AND TO UNLEARN TO:
• Focus only on our individual
realisations
• Focus only on our own agenda
• Rely too strictly on roles& rules for
“who does what by when”
– Increasing the separation
between people even more
… TO LEARN TO:
• Solve problems together, starting from
the question, not a suggested solution
• Look at the same problem from multiple
points of view
– “Walk each other’s shoes”
• Let autonomy do its work, by giving
people time to get grip on the problem
• Ask questions to dig deeper, together,
instead of staying (uninterested) at the
surface of the problem
• Develop new skills/ behaviours “while
doing”: be more goal oriented,
transparent& ask for help where needed

The “complicated” yo-yo play in top down organisations
-67-
Surely, some yo-yo is needed and even effective … but a lot of organization have
way too much yo-yo … and that has important negative effects on BOTH
performance and engagement:
• Performance: more& more difficult to take all those “right“ decisions at the top
• Engagement: less& less autonomy, so less& less own experience of realisation
A
B
What
happens
here
The realisation
that there is a
problem in
area B
1
Provide input/
analysis on the
problem and
potential
solutions
Decide on
what solution
to implement.
Appoint the
responsibles
Implement
solution as
decided. Report
on progress
Decide on the big
steering
problems during
implementation
Adapt implement
according to
steering
decisions. Report
on progress
What
happens
here
3 5
2 4 6
… ……

-68-
The problem with …
Consulting: They solve a business problem you have
but by doing that too much themselves,
they stand in the way of the engagement
you critically need inside to actually
implement those solutions successfully.
Coaches/ trainers: They take you out of your actual business
problems & context, to inspire/ talk/
question around generalised topics
(engagement, leadership, your comfort
zone, …). Their theory is “correct” but
detached from your specific context, so it
doesn’t optimally help you to find
engagement IN the problems/ solutions
you are actually dealing with.

-69-
What we know& do in sports
… but seem to forget/ fail to do in business
When we want to improve human efforts/ performance …
… in sports …
(e.g. mastering a new technical skill,
a new team playing system, …)
… in business …
(e.g. mastering a new sales approach,
a new way of planning work between
divisions, …)
… we try, train, learn, fail,
re-do, perfection, …
… grinding through only
minor improvements
initially … consistently&
systematically … over long
periods.
… we assume it can be done
by “only” (i) stating it clearly
enough (top down)& (ii)
giving specific roles& rules
to “check/ reward or
punish” if it’s happening
already

-70-
The trick to make autonomy really work
When giving autonomy (around a problem to solve) … you
have to simultaneously do the effort of making people better
in what they do
If they don’t get better/ improve performance … you will
revert to “control” eventually (the autonomy doesn’t really
add anything)
But when autonomy becomes the driver of really getting
better (and being helped in this) then both you ánd them will
never want to go back to “the old days of control” !

-71-
The Pactify behaviour-performance model
Drivers for
behaviour
Actual behaviour Behavioural
performance
Measurable
performance
Engagement
vs.
disengagement
&
Cooperation
vs.
“Working Apart
Together”
Acceptance of
responsibility
Problem solving
(without
escalation)
Excellence/
Timeliness/ Goal
focus/ pro-
activeness
Agility/ resilience
…
Control
Communication/
Transparency
Autonomy
“Flow”
“Group Flow”
KPIs
(sales, growth,
returns, efficiency,
effectiveness, …)
Strong correlation Strong but indirect correlation Weak correlation
Through the
“management
system”

3 things can happen when giving a problem & some
autonomy to solve it … and cooperation is always the
best remedy.
-72-
Team skill to solve the problem
Difficulty of problem
Bored: the problem
is too easy
Frustration:
the problem is
too difficult
Engagement/ Flow:
the problem is not too
easy nor too difficult
1
2
3
The power of cooperation:
the team can help each
other to raise the challenge
they want to tackle
The power of cooperation:
the team can help each other
to raise their collective skill

-73-
Giving autonomy is not the hardest part, the
REAL deal is having autonomy accepted
You may have given autonomy, but that autonomy is
not (yet) accepted, when the team …
• … doesn’t formulate clear, aligned, actionable goals
• … doesn’t make its progress transparent
• … doesn’t experience enough Flow/ Group Flow …
To have autonomy accepted, people need to “practise”
transparency, Flow and Group Flow … IN the work itself
… in the work you’ve given them autonomy for.

-74-
The “productivity puzzle” in the Western world
All drivers/ levers for productivity, when seen on their own,
allow to continuously “do more with less resources”
• The experience effects
– The longer we do something the
more effective we become
• The scale effects
– The more we do of something the
more effective we become
So, in theory, when deploying all these levers in actual
organisations, we should see a continuous growth (even growth
increase) in “doing more with less” (i.e. productivity)
But, when everything comes together in actual, measured
productivity of companies, we see that productivity growth is
declining in all Western World countries …
So, what is the real reason for this productivity leakage in organisations ??
• The technology effects
– Calculation speed of processors increases
exponentially in time
– We invent more& more and better& better
productivity tools (ERP, …)/ management
practises (BPR, agile, lean, …)
1
2
3

-75-
“Every next decision” (small/ medium/ big) that you
plan to take, can be either:
… simply you exercising the
“control/ power” that you
have in your position
OR … an opportunity to give
autonomy (“you guys can
prepare it and take it”)
… but the more
you choose this
option …
… and the more
you choose this
option …
… eventually … the less
engagement below you and
also the less performance
… the more “real learning” to
deal with autonomy (to get both
engagement& performance)
There are enough “next decisions” (small/ big) to try more of this option
… it doesn’t necessarily take a full mindset shift first to start trying to
give more autonomy !

-76-
The difficulty with autonomy in organisations
We talk about it a
little too much
“Yes our people have autonomy”
“We empower our organisation”
But it’s not so
easy to know if
it’s really there
You can not measure “if people use
autonomy”, because it’s a behaviour,
there is no KPI for it
You cannot tell people “to use their
autonomy”, because it’s a behaviour,
not something you can put in roles&
rules and then expect it will happen

-77-
Which of the 2 types of performance do you focus on?
²
One person having a new idea
That person talking to some others about the idea
Someone picking it up and helping to make a business case for it
Management approving budget to do some trials
First 3 trials failing
Fourth trial successful
Approval for scale up in production and product launch
Initial customer feedback rather disappointing
Product repositioning and extra sales push
First half year sales 5% above target for new product
1
Performance
type :
performance we
can see or make
transparent
Performance
type :
performance we
can measure
(KPIs)
2

-78-
Performance = what we can measure
= our KPIs
A KPI = only an approximation of what’s really going on
(= not a measurement of everything, and only at specific timings)
When things get complex, and we “manage for KPIs” … we may
not be managing for what’s really needed
Two different ways of looking at performance
2 Performance = what we can see or make transparent
= what people do and how
= the behaviour inside
= excellence, cooperation, agility, resilience, …
How to manage for behaviour if we don’t have a KPI for it ??
1

The link between organising work, behaviour and performance
-79-
Behavioural
performance
(The performance
you can SEE:
excellence,
cooperation, agility,
resilience, …)
“People getting
things done”
= actual behaviour
(what people do and
how)
Feelings
that go along with it
(engagement/ disengagement)
+
What an organisation
system is about
Competences
Triggers/
signals/ cues
Motivation
&
&
• Recruitment
• Training/ coaching
• …
• A strategy
• Roles/ rules
• Plans/ Roadmaps
• TO DO lists/ Deadlines
• KPIs
• Communication programs
• ERP systems
• Steerco’s / Mgt decisions/
business cases
• ….
• Carrot& stick motivation
- Rewards/ punishments
(incentives/ promotions/ …
or getting fired)
1
• Intrinsic motivation
- Purpose, autonomy, flow
2
The performance
that is measured
(KPIs)

-80-
Real cooperation …
… is not just
… knowing your colleagues
… sharing information with them
… doing your part of the work well
… it is much more than that, it’s:
… helping the others in their efforts of
learning to get better in their part of the work
Now that sounds pretty crazy no ?
It does … and yet it’s the only way to master
complexity, increase performance AND engagement
… getting to compromises with them

-81-
²
… will never come from “carrot&stick” motivation
• “So you get 5% extra bonus if you help those other
3 people a bit more in the next quarter”
• Cooperation is a behaviour, it’s not measureable in
a KPI so not “incentiviseable”

-82-
²
… embodies EVERY driver of real performance
• 1+1 = 3
• Difficult decisions made as 1
… and simultaneously EVERY driver of real engagement (!)
• You
– need to use autonomy to get to cooperation
– need to find Flow and Group Flow to stay in it
– even may even experience the organisation purpose
• & you “avoid” the negative effects of “carrots&sticks”
– Disengagement and lower performance when
focusing too much on them

-83-
You can outsource a lot …
… but you can NEVER outsource
“behaviour change” in your
organisation.
Example:
more engagement,
more leadership,
more cooperation, …
Behaviour change will always have to come
from 3 things that are 100% ON THE INSIDE:
1. The people
2. The way they work
3. The way they work together

-84-
An inconvenient reality on “leadership” these days
So many books/ consultants/ coaches that say what
“real leaders” should be capable of
– … creating ever increasing expectations on them
And yet so little organisational practises/ systems that
allow people …
– to actually learn this by doing/ trying/ failing … continuously
• not only be educated/ coached/ … into it from time to time
– while being helped by the others in the learning
• or at least avoid that “the others” spoil the leadership learning

-85-
The 2 extremes of treating “role descriptions”
… abused as
“proof” that
people are not
performing in
their role.
… used to
understand what
people do and
help them get
better in their
role.
Role descriptions can be …
The same role description … but 2 completely
different outcomes on behaviour …

-86-
The place where …
… people find engagement … or lose it
… teams help each other … or hit into each other
… IS the work itself (!)
So if you want to learn to find engagement &
help each other, it should be done IN the work
itself.
(Because … you also ONLY learn to swim better by swimming, NOT by
being taught while standing on the side of the pool)

There is an important link between cooperation and
the level of interest in “the others” at work
-87-
The
likelihood of
cooperation
at work
The level of interest in “the others” at work
Seeing
them as
competition
Ignoring
them
Having a genuine
interest in how
they do what
they do
Knowing
what they
do
Knowing how
they do what
they do

A profoundly “wrong” tendency in organisations:
Our insatiable focus on “good news”
-88-
Because …
… when we focus too much on “good news” ….
….we systematically ignore/ avoid to see “bad news” …
… and understanding bad news (bad behaviour especially) …
… is key to any kind of significant and real improvements.

A purpose (a belief / “the why”) for an organisation can be
very inspiring indeed
But there are 2 “but’s”:
It should be defined with sufficient bottom-up involvement
– You may still force targets& deadlines upon people, but you can’t force a belief upon them
When you do , those bottom-up beliefs should converge fairly well into 1 shared belief
– You can’t have 50+ (slightly) different beliefs in 1 organisation
-89-
1
2
Any purpose “exercise” that doesn’t radically go for meeting these 2 key conditions …
is not even worth starting up.
1

Building anything of complexity and beauty … takes time
-90-
Take “human life” as an example:
• We took 1.74 billion years to develop from “bacteria” to “complex form of life”
• During those 1.74 billion years, for a “boring billion” years … NOTHING happened
- Only one-celled organisms (= no apparent progress, during 1 billion years)
- Or, for 57% of the “transformation” time … NOTHING happened
First bacteria
First form of
complex life
The “boring billion” period
(only 1-celled organisms)
If you ever complain “that things go so slow in this company …”: take some perspective …
you may be in the middle of a very complex and beautiful transformation ! ;-)

The “granularity” of engagement: it’s found (or not) “in the action”
… not in “the higher level stuff” (where we spend so much time on)
-91-
The overall vision& mission
The strategy &business strategies
The organisation structures
The processes and systems
Realising a milestone
(alone/ together, as planned& on time)
Doing a useful action
(that gets you closer to a milestone)
Your specific job role
The actual
behaviour
The
“higher level
stuff”:
components
of work that
aim to
stimulate a
certain
behaviour
The potential for sustained,
collective engagement
(AND performance !)

The important difference between
pleasure and engagement at work
“Pleasure” at work
-92-
“Engagement” at work
Low stress, enjoyable activities,
outside your actual job
Your own enjoyment from
performing in your actual job
Important (!) but not sufficient for
job satisfaction
• You need a minimum, but doing
much more of it has little effect
No real link with performance
Very strong effect on both job
satisfaction AND performance
… BUT more difficult to achieve
than pleasure, it requires
autonomy& Flow IN the job
E.g.:
• Bowling evening with the team
• The office party
• Chats on “how the weekend was”
• Sending around email jokes
• …
E.g.:
• Solving a tough problem in your team
• Setting your own deadlines& reaching them
• Pursuing your own idea until realisation
• …

-93-
Managers that have too much work tend to
fall into this dangerous tendency:
To get grip on all the work, they - understandably - try to
“make it more simple” … by categorising people or work
using “black or white stamps”
• E.g. “That’s a good guy: he has a great CV” / “The project is going well: the
traffic light is green”/ “Nothing good ever comes out of that department”/ “He
is a real white raven, he can do anything”/ “We were all aligned after that
meeting”/ …
The danger in this:
• Reality is never black or white. High performance (or lack
thereof) is always a combination of many, specific things
• Behaviour is oversimplified this way, no relevant insight in:
- How work is really being done
- How people really cooperate or not to get work done

Best practiseWorst practise
Use it only as a buzzword, not linking it to a
concrete problem to tackle
“Assume” people know they have autonomy
Give it only for a while, not allowing teams to
get to grips with it
Ignore what they do with it
Describe it: autonomy related to which
specific problem? What specific degree of
autonomy (where does it start and end) ?
Show sincere interest in how they tackle the
problem in autonomy
Come to their meetings to listen, read their
documents in detail
Give time& support to allow teams to “learn” it
Base your decisions on their insights
The chance that …
“teams will accept your autonomy (so take it and
use it to cooperate and increase performance) …”
… is directly related to …
“how convincingly you give the autonomy”

-95-
When managers need to convince other managers
of their idea … they have 2 options:
The most common tactic: Another, more powerful tactic:
Managers “disappear” to think it
through on their own, in their
specific department
• Preparing analyses, business
plans, communication plans,
project structures, staffing options,
budgets, …
Walk up to the other managers,
saying “I have this idea which
needs more shaping, wanna think
it through together ?”
• Ensuring their reality is treated in
shaping the idea, as well as their
option to contribute to it
1 2
If cooperation is already low
between departments, this tends
to make it worse (you increase
the separation even more)
An essential (but not sufficient)
first step towards more
cooperation

-96-
The “acid test” we can use to understand if real
cooperation has a chance to happen & be sustained:
When we organise work differently so people
can learn to cooperate, by doing, …
…is this new experience
… STRONGER than … people’s other,
current everyday
experience of not
cooperating at work
Managing for such a strong experience of cooperation implies giving
autonomy, creating the conditions for “flow” … and it’s for sure not
easy … but it’s our joint obligation to try to!
?
(if yes -> cooperation / if no -> no cooperation)
eventually

-97-
The “taboo” question not a lot of managers dare to
ask their people:
“According to you, where is this idea
gonna go wrong when we implement ?”
However, asking it & giving people enough time for it,
has 4 major benefits:
1. You allow people to get their own grip on the idea
2. You listen to them, and involve them into shaping a more
detailed& aligned solution
3. You get early insights “from the field”, that may be crucial
for eventual success
4. People see through a “This cannot go wrong” attitude
anyway …

You always need “solutions” and “behaviour to realise it” … but
many different possibilities and related success …
-98-
How do we get to solutions ?
(what should the organisation do and how to
get there ?)
Top down (solutions at
the top, consulting 1.0)
Bottom-up (with own idea’s,
problem solving from inside)
“From the people”
(Through autonomy
and Flow – team’s
OWN idea’s,
initiatives,
alignment,
progress, …)How do we
get to the
behaviour …
to realise the
solution ?
Controlled
(targets, KPIs,
procedures,
policies, … imposed
on people)
1
2
The classical hierarchy The clueless hierarchy
Pactify driven
organisations
The empowering
organisation

Two COMPLETELY different things regarding “autonomy”
Stating that you
give autonomy to
your people
-99-
Ensuring that
people accept
your autonomy&
use it to do
something
performant with it
As a manager/ leader, your
energy and focus should go
into this one !

-100-
“Motivational speakers” don’t motivate people !
Only people can motivate themselves
Speakers, at best, may give some “hints” that
people use to try to change their behaviour
But we often quickly stop trying, without lasting
increase in motivation …
To get better at trying, we need less speeches and
more “systems”: systems that allow people to
systematically try to find, maintain and grow their
motivation (“in the action”, with the right level of
autonomy, through repetition, feedback,
transparency, …)

This statement
-101-
may sound soft& cheezy, but when
organisations get it “in the action” of
everyone, continuously … it becomes
the most performant thing ever!
“Besides doing our own individual
work, everyone should also
maximally focus on helping the
others get better in what they do"

Cooperation and mountain hiking
You need cooperation when you want to reach the summit together
... but when does cooperation really has a chance to happen ?
-102-
BUT when everyone
(including the leader) …
… frequently goes down to the
slowest hiker and helps him to
make more progress again …
NOT when we only focus on the
leader of the climb …
• … explaining how beautiful HE
thinks the summit is
• … showing that HE knows very
well how to get there

Real cooperation happens when we learn to build solutions
“from the ground upwards, together” … not when we hope we
can send 2 opposing opinions into 1 (optimal ?) compromise
How NOT to get cooperation: A better alternative:
Let’s confront 2 positions (e.g. a
marketing & a sales point of view)
… let’s apply “common sense”
(my common sense or yours ??)
or else let’s apply force
(from where ? from above ??)…
… and hope it will “merge” into 1
(beautiful ??) compromise …
… but leave 2 disappointed,
disengaged parties behind
(even when the execution still has
to start ?!)
Let’s not start with 2 positions but
with 1 question to solve together
… let’s work, in small steps, to build a
joint solution, from the ground
upwards, consistently learning how to
mutually understand& contribute at
every step of the building process …
… so we build better solutions than an
orchestrated, forced compromise …
AND have a more engaging
experience of cooperation WHILE
DOING SO

The 2 best known management paradigms are more and
more in conflict with each other …
The performance paradigm
-104-
The engagement paradigm
When managers want more
performance ...
… they add more
When managers want more
engagement …
goals
structures
KPIs
meetings
reporting
…
Doesn’t bring more
engagement
(often on the contrary)
Not a solution for the ever
increasing performance
requirements
… they take people “out of the
action”, to relief pressure by:
doing engagement surveys
doing more communications
provide coaching sessions
doing team buildings
...

Communication and behaviour is often wildly disconnected
from each other
Communication may go like:
-105-
While observing the actual
behaviour may reveal that:
“Yes I will do it, in fact I am
almost ready”
“The project was a success”
The person hasn’t even
started doing it
Some important milestones
weren’t reached and 6
months after no one really
cared about it any more
Communication may be abused to cover up “suboptimal” behaviour …
and focussing too much on it instead of behaviour will only do more of
that

Let’s take 2 different ways to get to targets and deadlines:
Having clear targets and
deadlines written on a
paper by yourself or a
consultant
-106-
Giving autonomy to your
team & seeing what they do
with it: i.e. how they
develop targets and
deadlines themselves
QUESTION 2: On average, which of both leads to strongest results ?
A B
If you were only even slightly tempted to
answer “B” 2 times … then we should speak ;-)
QUESTION 1: On average, which of both gives you most comfort ?

-107-
FACTS :
1.Overall productivity grows relatively slow these days
– Productivity growth in Western countries merely ~1% p.a.
2.Individual workload grows relatively fast:
– More demands to cope with, so we are busier and busier at work
QUESTION :
Why is 1 not just the sum of all individual productivities and
therefore also “growing relatively fast” ??
ANSWER:
Because we do not optimally cooperate, or even tend to not
cooperate at all, making the whole (1) less than the sum of the
parts (2)

Why it makes no sense to do
“engagement surveys” …
-108-
When you present the results, people only start
comparing, insinuating, finding excuses and blaming the
measurements …
… so instead of opening a debate for more engagement,
you just created more disengagement instead.
Now, when you stop doing these surveys, you have
time and energy left to tackle the real question related
to engagement: “How can we organise work differently
so we learn to deal, IN THE WORK, with such engaging
things like: communication, transparency, autonomy,
Flow and Group Flow (cooperation)?”

The 2 extremes of “managing work”: both extremes don’t
work but we still seem to always go for only these 2
-109-
Giving too little
freedom:
Giving too much
freedom:
Controlling most of the choices/
decisions/ milestones/ deadlines/
…
Expecting people to spontaneously
come up with complex solutions,
even developed in full cooperation
… but where you do not create the
context, and give time and support
for them to be successful in this
expectation of yours
For any business challenge, you need to find the
“goldilocks conditions for superior performance”:
1 2
Not too much, nor too little freedom and the right level of support so people
actually have a chance at finding their higher levels of performance and
cooperation

What is the real problem with “resistance to change” ?
-110-
People DO NOT resist to contribute to making their
organisation better off !
That’s not the problem (… it’s even a huge opportunity)
People only resist the fact the solutions “to make the
organisation better off” are …
• … mostly invented for them, not enough by them
• … forced upon them faster than they can get to grips with

Instead of making even more “Chief Silo Officers” …
… we should be making more
“Chief Cooperation Officers”
= Officers who receive the power from the CEO to:
– Make 2 or more silo’s come together in a fixed process …
– … to solve a problem that causes suboptimal performance
across those silo’s today …
– ... with enough autonomy in that group so THEY find the
solutions (not forced upon them!)
– … offer the help needed so they can learn& grow in
“defining, aligning and executing” their solutions together
-111-

-112-
When you get serious about giving autonomy, you
need to assess first how it’s gonna be a success
WHERE? In what
area of the work do
we want to give
autonomy?
HOW LONG can we
try to make this
work ?
HOW TO HELP
teams to deal with
autonomy ?
WHAT level of
autonomy do we
give?
Risk& reward of giving autonomy
The execution
of the daily job
Continuous
improvement of the
department
The execution of
the new strategy
People can plan their
day themselves
Full freedom to find, decide and
implement any new solution
“After 2 weeks I
want to see results”
This is our new way of
working, for good.
50% of senior management time should be devoted
to helping people cope with the autonomy
We will evaluate based on
seeing progress
Cross-department
effectiveness
“No support. If they can’t
handle autonomy that’s
their problem”

-113-
We should be having more interesting discussions
about “autonomy in organisations”
NOT the “yes or no” debate Too black or white, talking, no doing …
BUT a discussion based on these actionable questions:
1. Where could we try it ? On which specific business challenge ?
2. Among which team, so the autonomy also triggers the right cooperation ?
3. What level of autonomy to solve that business challenge ? What is too much and too
little? What top down boundary conditions remain ?
4. How long can we try? How will we help that team to succeed ?
5. How to get transparency so we are comfortable to give autonomy ?
6. How can we give more autonomy when it starts flowing ?
7. How can we extend way of working to new teams/ new challenges ?
And before you know it, you’ll be doing, trying, learning … and
experiencing it. And when it grows, you just kicked of your most
important transformation ever …

-114-
How NOTto do change management:
“We, the management, have appointed
an external change manager to come
and tell you what you should be doing
differently from now onwards”

-115-
From the perspective of 1 single project:
The most “logical” tendency may be to manage it top down.
So deadlines are set and progress can be controlled.
Because we need to deliver right ?!
But when you look across the last 50 projects run like this:
You may see a gradual loss of engagement and cooperation ?
A loss that is probably not fix-able in the next single project ?
• Or in extra communication or teambuilding sessions ?
In that case, it’s time to start to deal with gradually more
autonomy throughout projects in the organisation …

-116-
A key skill for any organisation
To know (i) for how long
(ii) for which challenges
(iii) and to which teams … to give autonomy
… before going to that other option which is control
• Which will get “some of the job” done
• But without more excellence, engagement,
cooperation than what you are used to get
Only way to build that skill: try, learn, re-try … in
concrete projects/ challenges, continuously from here on

-117-
What is ”Group Flow” ?
“Group Flow" is the feeling of Flow (being in the zone) happening at the
same time in a group around a shared goal and shared progress towards it.
It's when everyone's actions seamlessly come together for optimum progress
of the group.
It's when everyone focuses on helping the other, when the group really acts
as 1, instead of a collection of different actors.
It's when differences between people become irrelevant, because everyone's
mind is focused on (i) the action, (ii) how progress is made and (iii) how they
can contribute/ help in it.
Example in soccer: when a team scores a great, difficult goal, by perfectly
circulating the ball around so the opponent fails to intercept ...
Group Flow happens a lot in team sports, less in business. But even in
business it's possible and should be the objective when organizing work.

-118-
The concept of a “job / role description” often
stands in the way of real performance
… only approach it from the perspective of our own role
… not ask how people in other roles think of it
… separate the solution into the different roles
… not know how people in other roles make progress
… think we should not help people in other roles
… think we cannot ask for help to people in other roles
When we are solving a problem or are in execution …
... with people from different roles, we often tend to …
Key to solve this: not throw away roles, but organise work for
more “Group Flow”, where “role focus” disappears gradually

-119-
How to get REAL alignment in a team ?
NOT by: Aligning in 1 GO, by having everyone
say “YES” to a new thing.
It doesn’t work … even when the
communication is well done and
the new thing is well explained.
Yet we still do this
and still hope it
will work
BUT by: Aligning through a process: so you
allow everyone to have the time to
either grasp or even contribute to the
new thing

-120-
Where do people really find
engagement and cooperation ?
NOT here (=“out of the action”):
• Reading a new company newsletter
• Sitting in general communication
sessions
• Reading about the new strategy
• Going to a couple of coaching sessions
• Reading your new job description
• Looking at a new KPI dashboard
• Getting only “shallow” appreciation for
the work done
• …
BUT “in the action”:
• Solving a problem that makes the
organisation better off …
• … doing that together
• … with some freedom (autonomy) on how
the solution can look like
• … long and intensively enough so that
everyone can get grip on
– the problem to solve
– their potential to contribute to it
– how they can help the others in it
• … with transparency on how everyone
contributes& how progress “Flows”
We need to do less of this and start organising more of that

-121-
A universal purpose, applicable for
any organisation:
Continuously create more
engagement and cooperation
inside
Let the products/ services, and how they
are developed, produced and sold … be
the proof of that purpose

-122-
Communication can be a mess
“Our people are engaged”
“Our people take ownership themselves”
“The project is fine because its traffic light is green”
“We are 1 team, 1 company”
“The plan is approved by the steering committee”
…
Examples of statements that can have
very different meanings in reality:
To avoid the mess: keep observing reality closely
and match communication to it, not vice versa

-123-
Wanna try more COOPERATION ?
Start here:
Practise/ train yourself to become more
interested in the others than in yourself
– their work, goals, plans, progress, …
Don’t set goals for this, just adopt it as a
habit (as a “system”) and let it flow … you’ll
be amazed at how things will change

-124-
Biggest enemy for COOPERATION:
Our fear that we will
be worse off individually,
when we invest in
cooperation with the others.

-125-
REAL COOPERATION leads
to company performance
where people …
• … do not only push their individual interests
• … are fully engaged in their contributions
• … are fully engaged to help others in their contributions
Question for any leader, on any given day:
How close does your current company
performance gets to this one, and why ?

-126-
When you want your people to
accomplish a challenging task …
… are you A) organising it so they can find
their motivation to want to excel
at the task?
only repeating your wish/ order
that they accomplish it ?
or
B)

-127-
“Execution will consistently fail to
deliver on its promises when you do not
consider basic notions of autonomy and
flow/ group flow at the start of it”
… even despite all communication efforts
all brilliant analyses& reports
all motivated project managers
…

-128-
Do NOT say too quickly:
“The project will be fine because we have the
“right” project manager for it”
… is much more
dependent on
WHY ?
Delivering a project on time, on scope, on
budget …
the collective engagement &
cooperation of everyone
… than on the individual qualities of
the project manager

-129-
Do NOT say too quickly:
“The people will be engaged because we will
communicate the change very well”
WHY ?
You can NOT “communicate people into
engagement”: people find/loose their
engagement their own reasons, not
necessarily the ones communicated to them
Give a bit more autonomy& help them into
flow … throughout all the change work …
and they WILL find their reasons

-130-
ANY management method EVER INVENTED
(be it top down, waterfall, bottom-up, agile, lean, holacracy, …)
… NEVER works
when there is NO engagement &
cooperation inside.
… ALWAYS works
when there is
The real point is NEVER the methodology,
but the behaviour inside …
and how that behaviour can be improved.
engagement &
cooperation inside.

Organisational
performance
(of a team/ department/
entire company)
-131-
Organisational performance is much more driven by the
HOW than the WHAT
~
WHAT the
organisations does
HOW the
organisation does it&
Examples
Impact on
actual
performance ?
• Cut costs
• Innovate based on new needs
• Go digital / go multichannel
• Do an agile software project
• Grow in new regions
• Acquire another company
• ….
• In cooperation … or in silo’s
– Invented in “top” silo& pushed down?
– Only in a few silo’s or across all ?
– Big start but no sustained focus?
• With engaged people … or disengaged
– Feedback? With autonomy? In Flow ?
• Driven by a purpose of only profit ?
minor
HUGE

-132-
Disengagement & “working apart together”
are behaviours that grow,
in response to a specific work context
Using the EXACT SAME logic:
Engagement & cooperation
are behaviours that grow,
in response to a specific work context

-133-
The ultimate mission of a manager is to
change behaviours
(concretely: create more engagement and cooperation)
Their main mission is NOT to define strategy,
implement new rules, structures, KPIs,
systems, …
Instead, they mainly need to change
behaviours SO THAT those new strategies,
rules, structures, KPIs, systems …
ACTUALLY do increase company
performance

-134-
When organising work, we do not always get the action&
cooperation we wanted to get
Communicate a new strategy
Set-up a new department for a new function
Assign/ promote someone into a new role
Measure a new KPI for a department
Send people to a 4-day training session
Give a business problem to solve, with some autonomy
Same as but in a systematic learning process
• More and more problems solved like this
– Not where hierarchy “prescribes” they should be solved
• With support to help teams to learn new behaviours
– Accepting autonomy and use it for higher performance
• With more transparency on how they make progress
Match of real action&
cooperation vs. desired one
Different approaches to organise work
(= i.e. to get things done)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 6
Low
Low / medium
Low / medium
Low / medium
Low
Low / medium
Optimal

List of things we can define,
manage, influence, measure,
optimise:
-135-
What
we
used
to
think
What
we
realise
more
and
more
• The strategy
• The organisation design
• The talent to hire
• The processes/ systems/ …
List of things we can
NOT/ HARDLY manage
or influence:
• The resulting behaviour
of people (cooperation)
• Behaviour (cooperation) IS manageable
• To manage it, it takes more than the classical instruments
- 5 specific drivers: communication, transparency, autonomy,
flow& group flow
• It is the next source of competitive advantage
- Never really tapped into before by organisations

-136-
“Bottom-up or top-down?”
… usually a silly black or white discussion
Unless if you consider this:
You can NOT be successful as an organisation in
today’s VUCA world,
if you do NOT allow people to
try, learn, practise, experience, perfection, …
…all those new and complex things…
… IN their daily action

Pactify - 1 page slides

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a Pactify - 1 page slides

Semelhante a Pactify - 1 page slides (20)

Mais de Bart Vanderhaegen

Mais de Bart Vanderhaegen (6)

Último

Último (20)

Pactify - 1 page slides