Fast Track to Performance
Helping organisations to turnaround underperforming groups and individuals.
Enabling Boards & Executives to resolve issues to improve business performance
There are some occasions when the Board or Executive realise that they have reached an impasse with a people- or communications-related issue; unless resolved it will affect ongoing business performance.
For example:
- Securing wholehearted support for the business strategy is impossible; some members at the meeting have an alternative strategy and constantly undermine the one being pursued.
- The relationship between the Non-executive Directors and Executive is fraught and unsatisfactory; creating an appropriate balance of challenge and support has proved evasive.
- The Executive support and defend their departments and don’t understand that their defensive behaviour runs counter to a corporate perspective.
- The Board might want to remove an underperforming Departmental Head rather than take the time to understand why the problem has arisen.
- Or you may simply want to accelerate the integration of a new member of the Board or Executive.
This is when Kennedy is invited in, but before we accept a Fast Track to Performance commission, we need to know:
- We have a clear understanding of why help is needed
- Any constraints that will be imposed
- What a successful outcome will look like
- That we have the freedom to gather the necessary information and assurance that our recommendations will be taken seriously
If the issues are focused on financial viability and stability this is not our strength. Our focus is on the interpersonal relationships of the Board and Executive, the decision-making of the group, and the impact this has on the organisation. We are committed to creating a highly effective group able to shape and secure the future of the business.
Decision & Interaction Analysis (DIA)
Understanding the people and their impact
Most issues of concern involve ways in which individuals, and the aggregate of the Board or Executive, impact the business. We do not use one of the myriad psychometrics to assess members of the group.
Instead we use our Decision & Interaction Analysis (DIA) which identifies the core thinking pattern of each person. It details our motivation to concentrate on different parts of the decision-making process. It explains how we interact with others. It supports and underpins the psychometric tools that we use. It can highlight the reasons behind past successes and failures in an objective and non-threatening way.
The approach is based on Action Profiling®. Find out more about this here
Who would benefit?
The Decision & Interaction Analysis (DIA) is an analysis that will benefit any individual or group with responsibility to shape and lead the organisation; where performance of an individual or the group is a concern; and where there is a need to better understand how the decision-making process is impacted by the individuals involved. It has equal application in all sectors.
Arrange a discussion to see how we could help get your Board and Executive back on track, taking the decisions that give clarity and certainty to the business.
DIA – What it is:
The Decision & Interaction Analysis (DIA) reflects the individual’s unique decision-making pathway and the impact this will have on their decisions, whether on their own or in combination with others. It creates a framework for understanding the thinking processes that go into the development of a decision, and one that can be used to improve the decisions of a group.
What differentiates DIA from the other approaches aimed at improving individual and group decision-making is that it focuses on the impact of the individuals involved, and not just the process itself. It is also unique in identifying the differing interaction needs of group members at each stage of the process. This knowledge enables each person to understand the contribution and expertise of their colleagues and know when external support is required. It highlights the processes that will deliver clear, constant, sustainable decisions in a time-efficient manner.
DIA – What it is not:
- Something that undermines the power, expertise, and authority of the group
- A superficial process for decision-making
- Another psychometric test (for example Myers-Briggs, Belbin, DISC)
Arrange a discussion to see how we could help get your Board and Executive back on track, taking the decisions that give clarity and certainty to the business.
DIA & Individual Decision-making
The analysis provides the individual with an insight into the way they approach any problem or decision by identifying how they apportion their energy between the various thinking processes. It helps them to understand that everyone has high and low areas of motivation, and that some processes will be effortless and energising while others will require more effort and sap energy. It will help to understand the reasons behind past successes and failures in an objective and non-threatening way.
Each person will begin their decision-making in the areas where they have the highest motivation. The DIA:
- Describes what the individual initiates and where they are most likely to focus their energy
- Recognises that no one has a perfect decision-making pattern, and everyone has something to contribute
- Provides a framework against which to understand how to create a positive environment and how to avoid stress and conflict
- Shows how the individual can manage their decisions to reflect the needs of the situation and achieve a better outcome
The profile of each person is obtained from observation of movement, or from responses to a short form which takes up to thirty minutes to complete. The analysis is based on our findings working with the Action Profile® framework which has been used with Boards and Executives in the Western world, and across sectors for over 60 years.
Confidential meetings are held to provide individual feedback. This looks specifically at their approach to taking decisions, the strengths they can build on, the potential pitfalls they may encounter, and areas where they might want to manage their impact a little differently.
After a period of reflection a further meeting can be held to discuss the profile and how it can aid them in their work.
DIA & Boards, Executives or Senior Management Groups
Feedback to the individual is confidential. It is the anonymised aggregate information that is shared with the participating group.
When used with any senior group, the analysis will give them confidence in their ability to:
- Unravel the conflicting uncertainty and competing pressures that undermine confidence
- Clarify the future shape and focus of the business
- Align the structure and energy of the company with the decisions of the Board and Executive
- Provide a clear and consistent message to staff and external stakeholders
- Secure genuine commitment to implementing the decisions taken
- Overcome any conflicts and differing agendas
- Ensure meetings result in meaningful and effective action
- Commit to performance improving initiatives that have a direct and tangible impact on service levels
Arrange a discussion to see how we could help get your Board and Executive back on track, taking the decisions that give clarity and certainty to the business.
The cost of getting it wrong
Where the group does not utilise their differing decision-making strengths and act as a cohesive team there is considerable potential for:
- Critical decisions delayed and business opportunities missed
- Decisions pushed through by the more outwardly forceful members of the group resulting in loss of valuable input from the less assertive members
- No shared awareness of long-term implications and consequences resulting in decisions that offer short-term benefit but long-term grief
- A lack of open communication creating misunderstanding and competing agendas
- A lack of realism and joint resolve about what can and cannot be achieved
- A lack of clarity in the messages that gets relayed to the rest of the organisation
- Too little emphasis on planning and implementation
- Corporate norms that prevent novel and unexpected approaches being taken seriously
- An unwillingness to look outside the business to understand the competition and marketplace
Having identified and assessed the areas of concern, the DIA team report provides detailed proposals for the actions that will facilitate the mitigation of these potential pitfalls.
The individual knowledge of the group is brought together in a workshop to share the aggregate information and apply the lessons learned to an outstanding and challenging decision. We will directly address this in the workshop. We will work through the decision-making process which will allow the group to understand why the decision is so challenging, the approach most appropriate to resolve matters, and agreement on the actions required to take the matter forward.
Understanding the process will enable the group to accommodate the strengths and development needs of all colleagues. It develops confidence that future decisions will be robust and in the interests of the business in the longer-term.
Assignment cost and time
Each assignment differs to reflect the shape and size of the Board and Executive, the specifics of the business, the matter to be resolved, and the availability of people for profiling. The shape, time and costs of the assignment will be agreed in advance.
Arrange a discussion to see how we could help get your Board and Executive back on track, taking the decisions that give clarity and certainty to the business.
The Kennedy View of the World
Our work is underpinned by a core strategic management philosophy — The Kennedy View of the World — four interdependent organisation needs, necessary to making strategy a reality.
Effective Top Team Leadership
Kennedy offers a selection of services that enable the top team to shape and secure the future of the business. These services encompass:
- Facilitated resolution of a critical business issue or project
- Understanding of how the individual will impact individual and group decisions
- Detailed decision-making profile of the individual and aggregate impact on group decisions
- Review and recommendations for improving Governance and oversight arrangements
Winning Strategic Direction
Can your management team think strategically and are they contributing to your competitive vision and strategy? All must be making a positive contribution to success but is everyone focused on short-term imperatives rather than your longer-term goals?
Aligned Organisation Design
A new strategy demands that your organisation structure is re-aligned to eradicate the old silos and unify outputs. Unless an organisation’s structure and culture are embedded and it is made clear how everyone will contribute to the future success of your business, are you really going to grow to become a more successful force in your markets?
Successful Operational Delivery
Kennedy helps to deliver the following outcomes:
- An effective change management programme
- Establishing the best fit of people to roles throughout your organisation
- Providing supportive organisation and personal development
- Resolving key performance issues
- Embedding effective performance management throughout your organisation
- Establishing business processes that add real value to your business
For more information about The Kennedy View of the World, click here or contact us
Real clients – real examples
We have not named these organisations because Kennedy often works with businesses experiencing significant difficulty and these sensitive matters are not for the public domain. Additionally, we guarantee absolute discretion. We have the privilege of being given access to highly confidential information as well as the key individuals involved. We cannot betray that trust.
Influence was limited until the Director understood and actively managed his decision-making pattern
Problem
A senior Civil Servant responsible for policy recommendations had limited influence on the Minister of State. As Head of Department, he had a comprehensive understanding of the issues, could see the longer-term ramifications and how the changes could be implemented, yet still found it difficult to be heard.
As he embarked on his discussions it became apparent that the Minister was no longer listening, hence he didn’t understand or embrace the recommendations. This led to some frustration and impatience within the Department.
What we did
Kennedy profiled the senior Civil Servant using the Decision & Interaction Analysis. This showed that his natural thinking pattern was like a helicopter; he could see the subject of concern from every angle. This was an asset, but in conveying all the contextual detail he overwhelmed the Minister with information, making it impossible to distinguish the wood from the trees.
Outcome
Once the Director understood his approach to decision-making, he realised that changes were needed if he was to influence the Minister and see the proposed policies adopted.
He couldn’t change his natural thinking pattern, but he was sufficiently motivated and disciplined to manage his impact more effectively. Before approaching the Minister, he rehearsed the recommendation with his direct reports. They were able to provide the feedback that enabled him to isolate the core message and convey it in a succinct manner.
The change in approach was recognised and appreciated by the Minister; policy recommendations were pitched in a way he could understand and feel able to support.
Thinking in private without a need to share can create unnecessary barriers
Problem
Effective deployment of information technology was central to the success of the business, so much so that a director was appointed to advise the Board and embed the appropriate systems throughout the organisation.
The IT Director was very knowledgeable, understood the business need, and developed a robust approach to give the organisation a competitive edge. So why didn’t the business feel the benefit?
Kennedy was commissioned to work with the IT Director to see if his approach could be modified, otherwise he would have to go. If the technology was not implemented, it became a liability rather than an asset.
What we did
We talked to his staff and profiled the IT Director using the Decision & Interaction Analysis. He was a specialist who could identify the critical issues, could see how they could be addressed to benefit the business, and who could think through the implementation. The problem was the team working with him did not see the whole picture or understand the project implementation plan.
The Director conveyed what he considered important. If it was blindingly obvious there was no need to spend time spelling it out. If he thought his team should know what to do, he was happy to let them get on with it without close supervision. If the project meeting ended with him thinking a clear decision had been taken, he didn’t see the need to double-check that everyone had the same interpretation.
Basically, the IT Director did not have a need to share with others; he sorted things out privately.
Outcome
Recognising that much of his decision-making was done in his head – in privacy – without the involvement of others, the IT Director established routines to make sure he took his staff with him. By doing this he gained the benefit of their ideas, and found they felt ownership of the project. Consequently, his team became much more enthusiastic about implementing the project plans. Board colleagues came to understand fully and to value his contribution.
A change of leadership provoked a different dynamic and decision-making emphasis
Problem
The Executive didn’t know how to respond to the recruitment of a new CEO. He was stepping into the shoes of someone who knew the business inside out, who had confidence in colleagues, and who was prepared to support them without close supervision.
The new CEO came from an environment where immediate decisions were necessary and where action was the driving force; there was little expectation of receiving a considered response backed up by robust policies and procedures. He expected to control everything that went on.
This was a shock to the Executive who had worked well over a long period. They valued the contribution of colleagues, knew the strengths and vulnerabilities of the team, and found the uncertainty of the new CEO quite destabilising.
What we did
While the previous CEO had been in place Kennedy had worked with the Executive to determine:
- The purpose and role of the Executive
- The interdependencies that needed to be managed between members
- The Critical Success Factors against which the success of the Executive would be judged
- The rules of engagement
- How the group needed to work together in future
The new CEO was content to endorse and build on this work, but his style required a different relationship with the Executive. Not knowing the group, he felt they needed to accommodate him not the other way around.
Each of the Executive was profiled using the Decision & Interaction Analysis. Each received confidential feedback on their own profile and discussed how they could modify their natural approach to accommodate the needs of the new CEO.
A workshop was arranged to share the anonymised aggregate data, and to discuss the strategies that would enable the Executive to work effectively.
Outcome
The Executive understood the expectations of the new CEO and agreed the changes required to establish a good working relationship. The CEO learned that if he was to drive the business forward, he would need to modify his approach or see a significant turnover of the Executive.
These commitments enabled the group to work more constructively. Had it been necessary to replace the existing Executive the disruption would have been considerable and the cost very significant.
Knowing and liking your colleagues isn’t enough when you face a difficult challenge
Problem
Being part of a large organisation members of the Executive were aware of each other, had worked together throughout their careers, and had very good interpersonal relationships. They liked and respected one another.
The latest restructuring of the organisation brought them together to launch a new business. Each welcomed the opportunity but recognised that this latest challenge was bigger than anything they had previously undertaken, so they looked for external support.
What we did
Kennedy was commissioned to prepare them for the challenge. They needed to start over and not simply rely on long-standing friendships.
We worked with the team to clarify the roles and responsibilities necessary to shape and secure the future of the business. This necessitated some changes among the Executive, but all felt these changes were right and of benefit.
We also used the Decision & Interaction Analysis to explore the decision-making patterns of individual members and the aggregate impact of the group. It became apparent that previously held assumptions about each other were not always right. This made it possible to build relationships more appropriate for the task of launching and growing the business.
Outcome
The Executive created a robust strategy and implementation plan for the business. The client said:
“The recently appointed Executive team of the new Trust knew that there were no precedents for managing such a large and unwieldy organisation. We recognised that help would be needed if we were to fulfil the expectations of our stakeholders. Kennedy was invited to work with us to identify how we could use our skill base to best effect, and establish the processes that would enable us to be effective.
As a consequence of the work we have the tools and procedures to agree and deliver annual priorities, and provide the organisation with the clear leadership required to meet the challenges of an evolving healthcare system.”
Understanding how the team thinks can ease interpersonal relationships and enhance performance
Problem
It was essential for the Board of a national house builder to agree a strategy to manage a changing market. However, meetings were fraught and frustrating. Difficult relationships between some Board members made it impossible to reach any sort of considered consensus.
Differing views and proposals were dismissed without serious consideration. It was impossible to see and evaluate alternative approaches in such a febrile atmosphere. The chair was unable to stop the snipping from some members. There was limited cooperation around the table.
What we did
Our purpose was to establish a stable basis on which members of the Board could work together and reach decisions that would take the business forward. Knowing their decision patterns, we were able to form three groups to consider a critical business challenge from differing decision perspectives.
Each group worked at their own pace and once all had completed the task their findings were shared.
One group produced a really solid analysis of the problem together with a robust solution. Another finished the task in a fraction of the time and focused entirely on the timing and speed of implementation. They did not think it necessary to interrogate the data or ask the detailed questions that were essential to fashion a compelling outcome.
In the process of undertaking this exercise each group came to value the differing contributions made by their colleagues and personal difficulties were ignored.
Outcome
By using their Team Decision Chart, members of the Board understood why they found it impossible to reach sound, sustainable decisions. They understood that without involving all the decision perspectives they would fail to achieve an optimal business outcome.
The interpersonal relationships improved, and the obstacles created by non-cooperation became a thing of the past.
Accommodating all perspectives before committing to a decision will achieve a more enduring outcome
The NHS Operations Director was highly focused and committed to achieving the FT goals. Colleagues were left in no doubt what was required and knew that everything needed to be delivered at maximum speed. Decisions were underpinned by information, but there was little evaluation of options and a limited focus on longer-term consequences. As a result, colleagues accepted that various initiatives would be launched, found to be flawed, and a new approach would have to be found.
The Director of Nursing had a different focus. They gathered the information, built on the ideas of others, identified the longer-term consequences, and once a plan had been developed, would pursue it until it was adopted.
The two individuals were complementary in their decision-making but an unease in their relationship prevented them working closely together. After sharing their decision profiles they made the effort to take the ideas and views of each other into account. Consequently the working relationship improved. Decisions that would yield the required impact took a little longer to develop, but once implemented were more sustainable.
We have free resources available to assist your in your business
Frequently Asked Questions
Will this cost too much?
This is an investment, not a cost. We offer great value and will discuss this at the outset. Bad decisions are detrimental to the organisation; they waste resources, create chaos, and cause you to miss business opportunities. Having the ability to take decisions with everyone committed fully to implementation will transform your leadership and influence.
What if the analysis will conflict with other information we have?
This will complement the tools and techniques you currently use: it will underpin them and give you a greater understanding. You will understand why some things have been easy and worked well while others have been difficult to address, and possibly failed.
What do I do about some of my colleagues who are resistant to this sort of stuff?
Perhaps they are, but if you are unable to give the clarity and leadership the organisation needs something different is required. This approach has a long-standing proven track record.
We already use a decision-making process – will this help?
That will be a great help, but it will not recognise and incorporate the impact each person has on the decisions made. Our approach will complement and not undermine this.
How long will the process take?
The timing is within your control. We are used to working quickly; we just need access to the individuals to be profiled. Typically, such an assignment will take between six and twelve weeks from commissioning to the final workshop.
Are your meetings confidential?
Confidentiality is central to all we do. Nothing will leave the Board meeting.
If you have any further questions, just let us know
About Dr Sherril Kennedy
The behaviour and decisions of the Board and Executive can steer the organisation to a great future; cause it to simply ‘get by’; or condemn it to a slow and painful death. The responsibility is huge and the consequences are plain for all to see.
Early in my career, I had the chance to research advertising effectiveness in 20 blue-chip companies. They had access to great talent and big budgets but often failed to leverage either successfully. Contributions from less senior staff were frequently ignored and the narrow view they ended up with often led to ineffective and damaging decisions.
I soon learnt ‘if you don’t know where you are going any bus will take you there’. And I observed that many Boards and Executives were doing their best to lead the company but had no clarity of where the business was going in the longer term. The demands of solving the immediate took priority; there was little opportunity to think through what the business should look like five or ten years ahead.
“The behaviour and decisions of the Board and Executive can steer the organisation to a great future; cause it to simply ‘get by’; or condemn it to a slow and painful death. The responsibility is huge and the consequences plain for all to see.”
— Dr Sherril Kennedy, Founder and Managing Principal of Kennedy Business Solutions
I developed a very flexible and robust approach to address the stumbling blocks that prevent businesses moving forward.
For example:
- Different business units were brought together to meet changing demands. Without commitment to create a new entity the different groupings became entrenched, competitive, and uncooperative.
- An organisation was tasked with developing a new market segment. Being clear of the purpose, and having everyone committed to an agreed approach, enabled it to organise the work and the people in an optimum way to meet the needs of the marketplace.
- The Trust Board of a Charity had a very uncomfortable and rather dysfunctional relationship with the Executive. This reduced the impact of the Charity depriving the community it served with a less than satisfactory service. The Board and Executive developed and signed up to a statement which clarified how the success of the organisation would be judged by its key stakeholders, and what would be required to secure that success. This statement became a reference point that allowed them to operate more effectively and in a more constructive manner.
Facilitation is a core skill that Kennedy has deployed in a wide range of organisations and market segments. We don’t presume to know the answers but do know the questions to ask to gather the relevant information. And we know how to get genuine agreement to the decisions taken.
Clients say we have developed an impressive ability to tackle issues others may find too daunting, and of embedding sustainable solutions that bring significant benefits and added value to client organisations. See our case studies here.
Kennedy’s philosophy is to equip clients with the insight, tools and techniques which they can use without a dependency on external support.
Find out more about Sherril and the team
“I have known and worked with Sherril for many years and I never hesitate to put her in front of my clients.
She is very comfortable (and very good) in dealing with teams of executives and Boards. She also has very good diagnostic instincts and capabilities.”
Jean Pousson, Finance and Strategy Trainer
“Sherril is an outstanding OD practitioner. The task she took on with me and my colleagues in a major public sector organisation was quite daunting but she tackled it with total confidence and carried it through to a highly successful conclusion. She is a one-woman poster-person for the arts and science of OD and a pleasure to work with. I can whole-heartedly recommend her as offering powerful direction and support for top teams and HR departments who want to achieve transformational change in their organisation.”
Mike Emmott, Associate adviser at Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
“Sherril undertook an Organisational Review of an organisation on whose Board of Directors I have served for several years. She worked closely with the Executive team and Board during several months developing a Governance & Strategic Framework clearly identifying Purpose, Priorities & Objectives as well as critical success factors. As a consequence, the Board and Executive have a clearer focus, work more effectively, and provide clear and consistent leadership.
Sherril has a remarkable capability to get everyone engaged, involved and contributing to the process. She is a clear thinker and very focused as well as highly analytical. She is a pleasure to work with and a true team builder and leader.”
Eva Wisemark, Owner of Optima Management (IOM) Ltd
“Sherril provided highly valuable insights into the senior management of my company and assisted in the successful restructuring of the whole organisation.”
David Wertheim, Chairman at Arts Aid
“Sherril is a highly skilled development professional. She works very successfully with complex teams and individuals, working in high-pressure areas where relationships and achievement were critical. Her work is challenging, but the outcomes are both impressive and long-lasting.”
Zoe Van Zwanenberg
“I had the recent pleasure of working with Sherril on an Executive Coaching, Board Development and Change Programme, working with the Executive and Board Directors of DHU Health Care. Sherril very quickly assesses the issues and main drivers for effective change and quickly gets to work in providing tools, experience and recommendations based on underpinning knowledge and academic resources. Sherril has the ability to work with the participants to understand the root causes, analyse the findings and guide colleagues into a new way of working and thinking. Sherril successfully removed red tape and complex processes and provided a framework for effective decision making, responsibility matrices as well as designing a more succinct Board Reporting structure. I would highly recommend Sherril in supporting with Board Development, Executive Coaching and Organisational Design and Development.”
Lisa Wallis, Executive Director of HR & O.D. Derbyshire Health United
“Thank you for the summary and the session, it was really enjoyable. I picked up some reflective moments and certainly an approach to factor into Board behaviour and their own preferences and styles that once smartly considered will improve their collective performance. The session was the right amount of time. The interactive chat worked well, and allowed us to get involved and share and you picked up our questions – made it feel more personal across the screen.”
Karen Malone, Deputy CEO (Governance), Department of Health and Social Care, Isle of Man Government
“When we were faced with extremely tight timescales, Kennedy were able to design an organisation structure and detailed role profiles for all staff within a remarkably short period. The result was robust, comprehensive, and helped us change our whole approach to providing client-focused services.”
Taroub Zahran, Director of Organisational Development, Glasgow Housing Association
“Kennedy developed the model that enables us to tackle a key issue - the prevention and control of infection and communicable disease. The model details how each person in the healthcare system contributes to preventing and controlling infection and provides the tangible measures by which we can monitor our success in tackling this issue. The innovative and professional approach taken proved to be great value for money, and was undertaken at remarkable speed.”
Mary Henry, Nurse Consultant, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health