Why it works: A science of management and leadership

Why it works: A science of management and leadership

The intellectual background can be summed as below. It can be read for interest, and provides the fundamental base of the argument as to why OPD theory must work. But it is not necessary to consider the intellectual complexity in order to understand the practical argument. The intellectual complexity can be accepted, and the practical argument adopted in its own right as derived from the intellectual analysis.

Intellectual complexity

All aspects of all organizations are created by people. People interact with the organization which itself may outlive any person. Social science is the science of people including psychology and social systems such as groups and society.

Einstein offered general and special theories of relativity, one including gravity, the other not. The general theory thus includes all factors, the special theory does not.  If we now adopt the same terminology, then a general theory of psychology must include all factors implicated in understanding people and therefore account and apply to all outputs from people. Which means a general theory of psychology must account for what people do, therefore account for the interaction between people and the organization, and at the same time account for how the organization is created, which means account for how groups occur and why...etc.

There are several levels of complexity in seeking to explain people, organizations and the relationship of people with organizations.

  • Strategic science: If we are to accept a proposition as valid then all factors that could influence the proposition must be fully accounted for. This idea is exactly the same as building in total quality assurance. If every part is to quality standard, and if the parts assembled to quality standard, then the product is to quality standard. If we are to build a general theory of psychology to quality standard then all the parts must be to quality standard, and if not, to retain our intellectual integrity, we need declare the shortfall in quality.
  • General theory of psychology: Globally, there is no general theory of psychology. There are two significant issues that contribute to the situation. First, there is no theory of causality, thus developing a general theory of psychology to meet criteria of strategic science must be causal therefore a general theory of cause is a necessary prerequisite. Second there are no agreed intellectual tools and rules of construction in social science that will enable creation of such a theory.
  • General theory of groups, society and culture: There is only one actor, people, therefore any general theory of psychology must as a matter of principle be able to be aggregated and lead to a general theory of groups, and society, and within that theory account fully for culture.
  • Human evolution: People some 150,000 years ago were as we are today. Therefore any theories of individual psychology or group and social development must apply to people then as now, and account for all similarities and all differences.
  • Circularity:
  • People build organizations, they do not exist in the same way trees exist. Second, people are influenced by that which is created, therefore there is significant circular exchange between people and an organization which tend to influence one another. Any theoretical insight and understanding must account for this circularity.
  • People create knowledge. It then follows that any general theory of psychology must account for knowledge.
  • A general theory of psychology is itself knowledge. Therefore it follows that a general theory of psychology must account for its own existence.

 

Intellectual conclusions

There is no coherent, single theory of management, organization and leadership, nor is management theory respected. The reason is due the failure to resolve the essential intellectual issues and thereby built an adequate foundation.  Theory at the intellectual depth needed should not be a factor for consideration by the practical manager, but it is crucial that the practical manager knows it is fully accounted for.

All the complexity is resolved within OPD theory which is currently the only theory within which the complexity is resolved.

Practical argument

It is important to accept the questions as derived from and fully grounded on resolution of all intellectual considerations. The intellectual background precludes certain options and redefines others, for example, the causal factors that drive human mood and conduct, the idea of engagement, and the insight into how to link people to the organization and effectively manage that link.

Read the questions below.  All terminology is defined and in posts, books and newsletters at the profile. It is crucial to understand these are not merely another set of questions, they are derived from an in-depth theory of the link between people and the organization. The theory allows no other set of questions, and while any question may be phrased differently it must focus on the fundamental scientific variable describing how the organization and people must be linked and how that link can be more effectively managed. 

Reflect on the issues implicated in the questions. These are priority factors essential for top performance. For example, think of the All Blacks, and those questions applicable to top sports performance. Do you think they would have the details like this when facing England, and have different plans and thinking when facing, say South Africa?

For each role in each team:                                                                                               OPD standard

  1. Goal cascade: Are KPIs apt in relation to the business plan/strategy?.................................................................................10
  2. Ideal actions: Are the ideal actions in the role apt in relation to the KPIs?................................................................................................10
  3. Role specifications: Is it clear and apt on paper?...............................................................................................10
  4. Choice: Do people want to be successful in their work life?...................................................................................................8.5
  5. Engagement: Are people willing to strive to be more successful in their work life?.........................................................................................8.5
  6. Acceptance: Do people accept the role specifications?................................................................................8.5
  7. Agreement: Do people agree the ideal actions offer greatest chance of greatest success?..............................................................................8.5
  8. Clarity in mind: Do people have clear game plans of what to do to be successful in their job?.....................................................................10
  9. Motivation: Is the team leader building daily enjoyment at work?................................................................................................8.5

Overall question: If a team leader in your organization addressed each of these question in their team and ensured improved answers for each question, would you expect results to improve? It is very difficult to argue results would not improve.

Review the table. On the far right are the standards adopted by OPD against which we measure the actual team result (standards out of 10, 10 high). Then we work with the team leader to lift actual toward the standards. The standard varies because some items are ‘intellectual’ and some ‘emotional’. There is no reason why intellectual items cannot be 10 out of 10. Emotional items are psychologically more complex, therefore given a standard of 8.5. Now, rate your organization, and ask if standards were lifted toward the OPD standards, would performance improve...? We know from experience performance does improve. Second, in February 2015, a Masters of Business thesis was submitted in Unitec that showed that applying OPD resulted in at least a 12% increase in human performance. (The thesis was awarded a solid grade of A-)

The question now, if performance lifted 10%, what would be impact on results… remember ideal actions are derived from the KPIs, and a human performance increase is exactly that the ideal actions are being delivered with 10% greater impact and effectiveness. In the business case we propose a 10% increase in human performance, which in turn increases sales and reduces costs. We explore 1, 2 and 3% changes to sales and costs which then due the multiplier effect lifts profits. If current EBIT is 6%, then a 2% increase in sales and reduction in costs will improve profits to 8.01%, an increase in EBIT of 33%. If sales and costs improve 3%, then the payback in improved EBIT is 51%.

OPD makes people your greatest resource. If for example there is a recession, then the increase in results is relative to what would occur if OPD not applied and would offer the same gain over anything else being done.

Practical conclusion

Better science results in better technology which delivers better results. OPD theory is better science. OPD-SHRM, the set of HR and team leader processes is better technology.

The technology has been empirically researched and verified as an advance on other available technology. The technology has also been initially proved in clients in Auckland, and OPD is seeking 4-6 clients to be the final proof of concept. Client success being the platform for our success.

If interested in exploring how OPD-SHRM technology will payback in your business, making your people your most valuable asset, then contact via LinkedIn, or email [email protected].

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了