Understanding why people behave as they do to improve change delivery Enabling Change SIG APM funded research project update Thursday 9th June 2016

1. Understanding why people
behave as they do – to improve
change delivery
Enabling Change SIG – June
2016
Rod Willis, Carole Osterweil & Parag
Gogate
APM funded research project update

2. Session agenda
 Reflection time !
 Introductions & acknowledgements
 Research project update
 Research findings/outputs (high level)
 Case study 1
 Case study 2
 Q & A
 Next steps & close

3. Introductions & Acknowledgements
 Research Team
– Rod Willis, Carole Osterweil & Parag Gogate
 Acknowledgements
– APM
– Enabling Change SIG
– Assentire, OMQ Consulting & Arcus
– The Management Shift
– Sponsoring organisations

4. Research Project Background
 Volunteer research funded by APM and supported by
Enabling Change SIG
 Research Objectives
– Providing a means of measurement and diagnosis
for group dynamics
– Enable Change, Programme and Project
Managers to quickly explore and identify potential
behavioural obstacles at the Team/Organisational
level
– Provide useful indicators for further exploration so
necessary action can be taken to minimise impact
and maximise productivity.

5. Research Context
“A better understanding and management of group dynamics
(understanding different perceptions) provides the greatest
opportunity for improving change delivery”
 Measuring different perspectives
– View of the participant as part of a group during
times of change
– View of the participant when the group is part of the
wider organisation

6. Research Timeline & Methodology
 Timeline – April 2016 to March 2016
 Research methodology
– Phase 1 - Sponsor interviews including exploring
mindsets
– Phase 2 - Online survey
– Quantitative & statistical data analysis

7. Research Project Update
 Research Output (s)
– Diagnostic Tool and a norm group table created from survey
participants
– Individual sponsor organisation reports
– Research findings report (summary)
 Research participants
– Phase 1 – 15 organisations
– Phase 2 - 9 organisations; 174 online survey participants
– All responses are anonymous and confidential

8. Current status
 Phase 1 and Phase 2 are now complete
 Statistical data analysis has been carried out
 Reviewed by APM and EC SIG committee
 Diagnostic tool developed; norm table established
 Launch – 9th June EC SIG AGM
 Dissemination through various APM channels to follow

9. Phase 1 – Sponsor interviews & exploring
mind-sets exercise

10. Online survey
Intra Group Dynamic
(Relationships)
Inter Group Dynamic
(Environment)
The words are ONLY Labels
Review the question for greater
understanding

11. What is the culture of the group like?
LEARNING
DYNAMIC
CONTROL
DYNAMIC
This work was inspired by C Argyris, D Schön, D Stone, E Deci, R Ryan,
D Coghlan, E Schein, Robert Kegan & many more…

12. Online survey findings
Inter Group Dynamic (Environment)
IntraGroupDynamic(Relationships)
R² = 0.48512
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
GroupDynamic
Group Environment
Group Dynamic v Group Environment
Eight of the nine
organisations had
participants in all three
clusters

13. R² = 0.61852
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
LearningDynamic
Group Enviroment
Learning Dynamic v Group Environment
Learning Dynamic vs Group
Environment
 Clear positive
relationship
between the group
environment and
learning dynamic
(all 9
organisations)
 N.B – This not
necessarily causal

14. R² = 0.17613
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
ControlDynamic
Group Environment
Control Dynamic v Group Environment
Control Dynamic Vs Group
Environment
 Negative
relationship
between the
group
environment
and the control
dynamic ( 6
organisations )
 N.B – This not
necessarily
causal

15. Case Study –
Organisation A

16. Organisation A - Background

17. The Stress Cycle
Source: OMQ 2015

18. The Notion of Flow
Source: OMQ 2015

19. The Notion of Flow
Source: OMQ 2015

20. Phase 2 – Online survey
26 questions
were asked
online (On a
scale of 1 to
7 for the
research)
Source: OMQ & Innovation Audit

21. Internal Group Dynamics (survey findings)
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
C1. Tell
C2. Closed
C3. One_View
C4. Manipulate
C5. Individual
C6. Misunderstand
C7. Mistrust
C8. Degraded_WLQ
L1. Ask
L2. Open
L3. Many_Views
L4. Collaborate
L5. Collective
L6. Understand
L7. Trust
L8. Enhanced_WLQ
Group Dynamic Items
T-Score Norm-Mean
Below
Norm
Above
Norm
These factors
Enhance Flow
These factors
Constrain Flow
 Note the difference
between blue (this
group) and the red
(the norm group)
 Where is this
greatest ?
 Might drilling down
help ? (cluster
analysis to check for
masking)

22. Internal Group Dynamics (survey findings)
Cluster 1
8 people
Cluster 2
14 people
Cluster 3
12 people
These factors
Enhance Flow
These factors
Constrain Flow
 Average T
score for all 34
participants
 Note items with
the biggest
difference
between
cluster scores
 Clusters 2&3
represent 75%
people and
quite similar.
 Cluster 1 = 25%
(The two cultures may
‘conflict’ with each other
if there is limited
awareness of the group
dynamics AND they
need to work with each
other. )

23. Feedback

24. Case Study –
Arcus FM &
Arcus Solutions

25. Arcus - Background
 Two organisations participated in the survey (part of the same group)
– Facilities management & services provider
– JV with Sainsbury’s (single client); established 2009
– Arcus FM (560 employees)
– Arcus Solutions (350 employees)
– Operate as separate business units; majority of the support services are
shared
 Context of research
– Contractual change; New service line (strategic capability)
– Impacted both Arcus FM & Arcus Solutions Operation / Service delivery
teams
– Challenge – for teams to work together and deliver integrated service (first
time in group’s history)

26. How is the research helping?
 To understand how can we make these two
distinct Operations team work together?
 What is the respective readiness for change?
 To explore gaps in perception of two different
groups with distinct clusters within
 Contrast & explore – what should the our future
state be like?
 Given a common language to have further
discussions

27. Key messages - Learning Dynamic vs
Group Environment contrast
Arcus FM Arcus Solutions
 Similarity in results around the Learning Dynamic for both businesses
 How can we make it even better?
 Different groupings to be explored with the teams

28. Key messages - Control Dynamic vs
Group Environment contrast
Arcus FM Arcus Solutions
 Weak to no relationship between the Control Dynamic and the group
environment (distributed workforce)
 Very different perceived realities around the Control Dynamic for both
businesses – should be considered for integrated working

29. How could this help
with your change
initiatives and
projects ?

30. Next steps
 Dissemination through various APM channels
to follow
– Webinar (EC SIG)
– APM research findings report
– Diagnostic tool and norm table to be made
available via EC SIG microsite
– Presentation at other branch/SIG events
– White papers

31. References
 Argyris, C., 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn.
 Stone, D.N., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 2009. Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation
through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), p.75.Vancouve”r
 Coghlan, D., 1993. A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 14(4), pp.10-14.
 Schein, E.H., 2006. Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 356). John Wiley & Sons.
Vancouver
 Mintzberg, H., 2013. Simply managing: What managers do—and can do better. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
 Laloux, F., 2014. Reinventing Organisations. Nelson Parker: Brüssel.
 Hlupic, V., 2014. The Management Shift is Achievable Now: A Call for Action. In The
Management Shift (pp. 173-188). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
 Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L., 2009. Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential
in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press. Vancouver Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad
management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management
learning & education, 4(1), pp.75-91.

32. This presentation was delivered
at an APM event
To find out more about
upcoming events please visit our
website www.apm.org.uk/events