Redefining engagement

Overview of OPD theory of organizational design

This series of articles reviews the changes that result from applying OPD theory of organizational design. Each article assumes understanding of the OPD theory and aims to offer a brief review of how OPD theory leads to different insights and processes from traditional approach to people in an organization.

• ‘Origin’ Psychological theory (refer The Origin of Consciousness): Humans ‘see’ via ideas in mind using historical definitions to interpret current circumstance. Emotions become associated with ideas and so give energy to the actions arising from the ideas. The idea plus emotion is described as existing on a ‘frame’ and is the fundamental psychological unit (‘frame’ is a simplified model, technically in ‘Origin’ it is defined as a mental set). Frames relate to specific circumstance, carrying specific ideas about the circumstance. Frames are interlinked. What is on a frame is referred to as the ‘personal theory’ of the person. The emotion associated with the personal theory is how the person feels about the issue. Emotion plus personal theory is a major aspect of the person’s attitude. The central determinant of all human action is choice.
• Idea A: Goal → action principle: For every goal (Key Performance Indicator) actions are needed to achieve that goal (KPI). Actions needed to achieve KPIs are called ideal actions. Ideal actions are of the quality doing them does not guarantee success but not doing them guarantees failure. Ideal actions are derived from the KPI and are independent of people. Ideal actions offer the greatest chance of greatest success.
• Idea B: Strategy: Is able to be separated into many ‘smaller’ goals.
• Ideas A and B are irrefutable and lead to the OPD theory.
• Terminology: A game plan is KPI plus the ideal actions. The behavioral structure is a set of ideal actions relative to a group of KPIs, hence a behavioural structure consists of multiple game plans.
• OPD theory: Underlying every strategy is a behavioral structure.
• Management: Refining game plans and guiding them as personal theory on frames of ...‘what I do at work’. Striving for the perfect game plan.
• Leadership: Ensuring game plans imbued with positive emotion giving zest to the delivery of the game plan. Striving for the perfect game.
• Aim of OPD-SHRM: Perfect game plans perfectly delivered.

OPD theory of organizational design is built on the foundation of the general theory of psychology in The Origin of Consciousness, with fundamental intellectual issues discussed in the post The intellectual structure of social science and in books at www.amazon.com/author/grahamlittle and www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle.

Both the general theory of psychology and the OPD theory of organizational design derived from it are ethically constructed, by which is meant they bring to account all issues that could influence either theory.

OPD theory changes every aspect of organizational design and operation. After working on implementation in clients for eight years, I now have clear understanding of what is most changed and the issues and tensions that occur.

For more initial information email to [email protected] to receive the overview power point on the system.

-----§-----

‘Engagement’ as understood today

Employee engagement is a property of the relationship between an organization and its employees. An "engaged employee" is one who is fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work and so takes positive action to further the organization's reputation and interests. Wikipedia, Employee engagement, accessed 18th and 23rd January 2015.

This defines the current view. Engagement a term referring to a rather weakly defined emotional bond between the organisation and the person.

From the manager’s point of view it is difficult to implement. What do you do to get someone fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work so they take positive action to further the organization’s reputation and interests?

From the person’s point of view, what is in it for them? This definition is a stacked deck in favour of the organization. Reread the quote, where does it talk about what people gain...?

From a technical and intellectual point of view, there is no thorough theory of organization, at least the only one available is OPD theory. Organizations are created and operated by people, so how can we meaningfully discuss the issues without having some idea of what shapes and moves people. In short, can any discussion on organisations and people be legitimate in the absence of a general theory of psychology?

Would you build a house from the roof down...? The idea is silly. But discussing an organization in the absence of a general theory of psychology is exactly trying to build the roof when we have no idea of the shape of the foundations. At very least, any discussion on organizations should be prefaced ‘...in the absence of a general theory of psychology that could alter all the discussion, it is speculated that...’ That would be ethical, and accurate, but of course people would not be inclined to read such speculation, certainly not inclined to act on it.

The ethical qualification is seldom if ever stated. Discussion rolls forward thinking it meaningful, talking the good stuff, when in fact what is being discussed is equivalent to trying to build the house with no idea of the shape of the house or how many stories or the layout of the foundations...

OPD is intellectually sound theory

The OPD theory is built from the foundations up. No issue left unconsidered such that if or when considered could influence the theory. The intellectual position begins with irrefutable start point, that is we need photons to see, and then applies well defined reasoning techniques in the form of the cybernetic tools of W Ross Ashby (the founder of cybernetics) to build the theories summarised in the overview of theory at the start.

The intellectual process is very important. We begin with a proposition that is irrefutable, we apply precise reasoning processes and deduce the theories. If the start irrefutable, and the reasoning sound, then the result is at least secure, if not irrefutable.

It is this intellectual depth and thoroughness that sets OPD theory apart. Practical managers are not expected to dig into the depth, but they can be secure OPD theory fully accounts for the depth. Discussions surrounding OPD theory can proceed secure that they have depth and are an accurate reflection of the situation.

Why is this intellectual depth important? Would you make decisions on a new product launch with no information on competitor activity, market size or product costs? Obviously not. Making decisions on culture, staff performance, rollout of strategy, etc. in the absence of a general theory of psychology, is intellectually exactly the same.

The OPD theory of engagement

Reread the overview of OPD theory at the beginning.

Do not just read it, think about it.

The theory of psychology in ‘Origin’ and summarised above states we are the ideas we allow shape us. That means that if we use the ideas we have always used, we will do what we have always done and therefore we will get what we always got.

It follows to do better we need new, better ideas. Do we acquire insight and understand by skim reading without really thinking? Now reread the overview, and think about what you are reading.

The aim of OPD-SHRM is to build well defined game plans in mind, supported by positive energy. Frames on which are game plans as personal theories of what to do at work, filled with positive energy.

Visualisation is being able to ‘see’ oneself doing what needs done. It is used universally today by sports people. It does several crucial things. It coordinates existing skills into a sequence in mind of what one is going to do. In this way it ‘sets’ the body to do it. Second, in ‘seeing’ oneself doing it, draws out any negative emotions associated with doing it, and enables those emotions to be managed and curtailed prior to actually being in the situation. Visualisation works! In short, visualisation is a powerful tool for managing the link between body and mind.

OPD theory asserts that the tool applies equally in business. A person will improve performance if they visualise themselves acting out ideal actions as and when needed. KPI achievement will be enhanced for all the same reasons visualisation enhances golf scores.

By visualising doing ideal actions the person is engaging in mind with what they need do at work. They are preparing themselves to act out the ideal actions to the best of their ability and achieve the greatest result.

OPD theory defines engagement as visualisation.

OPD engagement is a better definition

OPD engagement is precise. It is grounded on in-depth analysis of psychology. It emerges from thoroughly grounded and reasoned theory. It fits. It is practical. It works for the person in enabling easier and more comfortable delivery of ideal actions. It will improve results even at the same level of emotional effort that is clarity alone if acted out will improve results.

OPD engagement works better for people

The person is required merely to consider their own conduct at work. They are not asked to approve of the company, to advance the company’s position, interests or reputation. The only ethical consideration is whether or not the person wishes to do the ideal actions relative to the KPIs of their job. If not, they need resign. If so, then visualisation will enable delivery of the necessary actions more easily and with less emotional effort and produce a better result.

In short, if someone is going to do the job at all, then visualisation is a useful and powerful tool to assist them do it with least possible effort for greatest results..

OPD engagement works better for the organization

Under OPD-SHRM, KPIs in all roles are derived from the strategy. So if the goal cascade of KPIs is reasonable, then to achieve KPIs is to achieve strategy.

Ideal actions in all roles are derived from KPIs, therefore to achieve the ideal actions is to achieve the KPIs.

The goal of the CEO is: (1) Guide clear game plans throughout the organization. (2) Have those game plans adopted by people as the frame of ‘what I do at work’. (3) Have team leaders motivate people by ensuring their work frames filled with positive energy. (4) Have team leaders guide people to help themselves by adopting the visualisation as the tool to make the best possible use of skills and insight.

In short, under OPD theory engaged people deliver perfect games more often and so deliver better results which means greater achievement of strategy.

OPD engagement is easier to use

OPD engagement is very easy to measure. (1) Ask people if they know their ideal actions. (2) Ask them if they can visualise themselves doing those ideal actions. (3) Ask them to recite the ideal actions or priority ideal actions under some particular circumstance. (4) Ask them if they are going to do the ideal actions (bearing in mind, that under some circumstances they may not tell the truth). (5) Ask them if they agree the ideal actions. (6) Ask them if they agree visualisation enables easier performance.

There is nothing ‘cultural’, or ethereal, or detached about a team leader having a discussion with a team member about the team member using their mind to help themselves to make their job easier and to perform better.

The questions just part of the regular interaction between the team leader and team member where the intent of the team leader is to keep game plans ‘top of mind’ in team members, and retain high engagement with those game plans.

The company culture that emerges is one of quiet self-disciplined focus on doing those things (the game plans) that need done when they need done.

Conclusion: Better ideas lead to better technology

The last 100 years has proved that better theory (quantum mechanics, combined with computer theory) results in improved technology.

The general theory of psychology in The Origin of Consciousness (and the supporting intellectual analysis in The intellectual structure of social science) is better social science. If the parallel between physical science and social science holds then better science should produce better technology, in this case social technology.

I argue the OPD theory of engagement=visualisation is better technology. When proved useful, practical and effective, this infers that the OPD theory is better theory, which in turn infers that the general theory of psychology is better theory, which in turn infers that the analysis of social science in the supporting paper (The intellectual structure of social science) is the correct theory of social science.

Better ideas do get better results. –§-