How to develop a University of the Future at New Mexico State University?

Updated with input by staff, heads of departments, and faculty comments on Feb 26, 2017. Thank you all for your inputs

 

Abstract The current university strategy to lower costs, by zero participation of faculty, students, staff, and workers at New Mexico State University (NMSU) in the selection of ‘Team 6’ appointments, zero solicitation of our ideas for change, and zero consultation with the entire university, is quite alarming. The implementation of ‘Team 6’ continues the downsizing and cost cutting, the exodus of faculty, staff, students, and workers fleeing NMSU. Team 6 is an outgrowth of the unscientific, antiquated consulting advice of Deloitte consultants who in 10 weeks, with zero input from the entire university, changed the university $622,700 for their downsizing, and span of control reorganization strategy. Teams 1 to 5 did downsize our staff, with zero input from the staff. Now Team 6 will carry on Deloitte’s unscientific (and peer-reviewed journals show the inefficacy of Deloitte’s business process reengineering strategies that have failed both business and education, since 1996). Team 6 is a strategy of defensiveness to the budget deficit of the State of New Mexico’s legislature, its over-dependence on gas and oil severance taxes, and its refusal to reform the tax base of its K-12 and higher education.   Rather than continue this inane external consultancy unscientific approach called Team 6, I propose a useful and scientifically validated modification. I will propose a viable alternative to Team 6, one successfully implemented in 2500 organizations around the world, and its self-financing, is not downsizing, does control costs, and leaders to higher quality outcomes. It is called the Socio-Economic approach because it combines a social emancipation of human potential in an economic understanding of how to create a quality university that sustains high professional performance of students, faculty, staff, and administrators. And we have the technology, the knowledge, and the expertise here at NMSU. So why not let Team 6 do their downsizing, reorganizing thing, and enact socio-economic approach at same time, and see empirically, which is best of NMSU.

Team 6, at its most benign, creates a document that gets filed away somewhere. My preference would be to rely on Faculty Senate to be be our voice, instead of team 6. Faculty Senate can become engaged, enthusiastic idea-generators. I hope there is a memorandum to this effect. Ultimately more shared governance through showing that we do have a voice is needed (in my opinion).
Introduction

The implementation of Team 6 is a big error in the strategic analysis of this university by Deloitte consultancy. In its first meeting, NMSU’s Team 6 was presented with a proposal to merge at least the Colleges of Education and College Health and Social Services (HSS). It is interesting that the composition of Team 6 lacks anyone in leadership roles in either of COE or HSS-just one faculty member each. This speaks to a lack of participation of those who do the work who will bear the result of Team 6 choices. It is naive to think that academic programs will not be cut or that they will be at the table if their units are being reorganized. From what I understand, our college deans were not at the table about the discussion to centralize advisors. They were told their personnel were being moved out of the colleges and into Garcia Annex by next summer when the offices are to be ready. Again this speaks to lack of shared governance at NMSU. I believe it is naive to think that these advising changes and the Team 6 proposed merger of Education and HSS will result in an increase of customer service whether it be to students or to each other. While I am happy Team 6 includes a former and current head of Faculty Senate, one only has to look at the dismantling of NMSU policy over the last three years under the current leadership to see that the Faculty Senate need only to be consulted on academic reorganizations. Perhaps, for faculty, a shocking development: ‘continuous faculty’ contracts, beginning this academic year, include verbiage stating faculty could be terminated by the provost.

Team 6 is a misunderstanding of the socioeconomic performance of NMSU. NMSU has already lost too much momentum, and is hemorrhaging its best talent. This loss of students, faculty, staff, and some administrators to other universities is worsening our national and international reputation, and will likely lower our status in competitive rankings. Further, there are multiple dysfunctions occurring on a daily-basis that heavy-handed reshuffling faculty, staff, and students between departments, between colleges, or combining various now much smaller departments (result of attrition) will not increase the quality of student education nor the quality of faculty research, nor achieve the promised $53 million in cost-cutting savings. Team 6 will no doubt continue to exist and sort out how it will combine, or eliminate academic departments to lower the faculty salary budget, the staff wages budget, the student worker budget, the graduate assistantship budget, and the department head salary in order to accomplish greater span of control move department heads from 12 to 9 month pay structures, and so on.   Let them do this.

  That will also have to go through the Senate and receive faculty input, unless the Regents completely throw out the manual.  The equestrian team decision is not an academic matter, and there is unfortunately no venue for involvement in the change in the athletics programs since change has been blocked.  The Chancellor implemented a team to work on the many problems but that effort was ignored and publicly rendered pointless by the regents.

My Story Let me tell you my story at NMSU, and then propose a better alternative. In 1996, 2008, and now in 2016, it was, each time of crisis, proposed that Management and Marketing Departments be combined, to cut costs (eliminate one department head, and one or two redundant secretaries) from the merger. However, each time, the initiative failed, and now Team 6 will carry this merger out (aka ‘administrative unit’ reorganization), and we will carry out. Already Engineering College eliminated an entire department ‘Survey Engineering’.The Survey Engineering Department was merged into what is now EngineeringTechnology and Surveying some 10 years or so ago (proposal passed by Faculty Senate).   What has now been talked up publicly in the press, by the upper administration is the elimination of the Surveying major. That will also have to go through the Senate and receive faculty input, unless the Regents completely throw out the manual.

And in ACES (Ag College) eliminated Equestrian Team, even though they were winning national championships.  As I understand it, the equestrian team decision is not an academic matter. There is unfortunately no venue for involvement of the equestrian team in the change in the athletics programs changes.  The Chancellor  I am told did implement a group to work on the many problems but that effort, but this attempt was ignored and publicly rendered pointless by the final decision of our Board of Regents.

Back to my own first hand story. In 1997, the university strategic planning committee decided, for example to merge Management Department with Marketing, eliminate the Management Ph.D. program (only one of 20 such programs put on the chopping block), and move the new administrative unit to the Agriculture College. I was department head and did successfully produce data showing Management had the 2nd best of all 20 Ph.D. programs, and nevertheless the two departments merged, and I was promoted to faculty member, and headed up the Ph.D. program for next six years or so. Now, the graduate assistantships to the Management Department have been eliminated so that College of Business, anticipating a likely cut in GA funds, can sustain its remaining GA support to all the other departments. Sacrifices must be made. But, is there an alternative to this defensiveness and helplessness NMSU strategy of self-destruction, and self-annihilation?

Bigger issues –>  The university has a significant problem because there are three or more significant constituencies in the university:

1)Those who are being managed and who make the place function (faculty, students, graduate assistants, staff, & operations workers),

2) Managers (department heads, unit heads), especially the upper administration who provide overall guidance, some of whom take regular feedback from members of the first and third groups and generally do not lie awake at nights figuring out how to shaft people, and

3) Board of Regents, which has the task of coordinating the efforts of the university to fulfill its mission in accordance with state law but which has arrogated all power to itself in violation of long-standing practice and in the service of a political agenda that is not friend to public education.  They seem to be so far down in the weeds that they can’t see the trees, let alone the forest.  They seem to think that business tools  (aka Academic Capitalism; treating Public University as a Business) are the appropriate ones to apply to what is manifestly not a business and has historically been much more successful than businesses. If NMSU were a business, it would have been bankrupt decades ago. Universities date back to the 13th century and have continually, if slowly, adapted to new social, cultural, and economic conditions to achieve long-term goals. They originally were faculty and students’ joint ventures, had few staff or administrative members.

Any solution to our current woes will need to take into account how to get all these folks together.  You can in fact get groups no. 1 and 2 to work together, admittedly with some tension.  At this point, I despair about turning no. 3 into a body that actually works for the benefit of the university.

            I Propose a  Viable Alternative to Team 6 It is a solution that works with the participation of all three groups above. What if we form small teams of regents, administrators, faculty, staff, and students that would work for six months, in an experiment, to cut ‘hidden costs’ (defined as invisible in the budget book methods or reporting) in order to self-finance changes that dramatically improve human potential, the quality of instruction, and results of research, and land NMSU in several years (should the experiments in intervention continue) in higher national and international competitive rankings? Said more succinctly: What if we unleash the human potential and collective intelligence of NMSU to bring about meaningful changes to the quality of teaching and research, by moving hidden costs into productive performance?

My proposal is to engage in a scientifically validated and reliable change management approach that has a higher likelihood of improving NMSU’s performance. It is called the “Socio-Economic Approach to Management” (SEAM). I have worked with the SEAM methodology for 17 years. NMSU has a signed MOU to use this methodology for the past 12 years, and unlike Deloitte, it is an MOU implemented at zero cost. I edited the Journal of Organizational Change Management for 13 years, and during that time did a special issue on the approach (Savall, 2003a, 2003b; Boje & Rosile, 2003). There is also a study abroad exchange program with Lyon III University and NMSU. SEAM has been used in universities in Europe, in Mexico, and elsewhere with great success since 1974 (Worley, Zardet, Bonnet, & Savall, 2015; Savall & Zardet, 2008, 2011; Buono & Savall, 2007; Savall, Zardet, Bonnet, & Moore, 2001; Smith, Boje, & Foster, 2011; Ruvalcaba, 2007; Hayes,McGilsky, D., & Lepisto, 2007). The scientific approach of SEAM is rooted in qualimetrics, defined as an integration of qualitative and quantitative metrics to assess the opportunities and the results of change interventions. Interventions are done on jointly planned short-term self-financing ‘experiments’ that include a qualimetric analysis of results (Boje, 2004, 2011; Savall & Zardet, 2011).

What is the Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM)?

SEAM is a change management strategy that consists of improving enterprise’s social and economic performance by developing the actual human potential by converting hidden costs into performance gains measured by quality changes with accounting, financial, and economic metrics. Instead of a defensive strategy of business process reengineering and its downsizing of personnel to cut wages and salary budgets, SEAM would increase full-time employment and rewards to students, faculty, staff, and workers by unleashing their human potential. Through a series of experiments people at NMSU would reduce hidden costs. Hidden costs are defined as unintelligible in the current university budget books, unavailable in the information reports administrators are using to pilot (steer) the university.

How can SEAM be implemented in this University?

 Hidden Cost Definition “Hidden costs are those costs which are not detected by the [university] information systems, including budgets, profit and loss accounting, general accounting, analytic accounting, piloting logbook” (Savall, 1979, as cited in Savall & Zardet, 2008: 27).

Hidden Costs (HC) is what the Visible Costs, such as the personnel costs (faculty & administrator’s salaries & fringe, student worker and operation worker’s wages), equipment costs, etc. that are showing in the university budgets information system.   Hidden Costs are a result of Structures and Behaviors of the university that create ongoing dysfunctions (gap between highest possible effectiveness & current result), plus what the administration implements to compensate, prevent, and manage the ongoing dysfunctions. Instead of solving the root of the dysfunctions (structures & behaviors), the administration uses visible cost data to organized (business) process reengineering (BPR, from Deloitte consultant’s advice) to make short-term cuts in personnel, and budget cuts, that do NOT address the HC or their root causes in the university structures and behaviors.

HC’s are diffused and dispersed throughout the entire university systems. HCs occur at the level of each individual (faculty, student workers, staff, administrators, operations workers). Visible costs are calculated in existing accounting systems at level of colleges, operational units, and departments (& operational units).

HC’s include results of tacit complicity of everyone at NMSU, because with the accumulated dysfunctions, the turnover, the loss of key personnel, the lack of resources to recruit competitively salaried faculty, fully funded doctoral students, state funds to hire student workers, and so onà everyone pitches in to make up the gap. However, what happens is administrators fill in for missing staff members, remaining staff are filled in by work study students. More things are centralized, privatized (outsourced), and so on. This is the dysfunction of a slippage in productivity, quality, and an escalation of expenses when people left after the downsizing and budget crises are left doing work of people who departed, and so on.

Its never a good sign, when a university calls in an external consulting firm, such as Deloitte (paid $622,700) to come up with a downsizing, reorganization, what in the consulting field is called ‘business process reengineering’ (BPR). The problem with BPR is that NMSU gets lean and mean (in more ways than one), and while the budget balances (at lower and lower levels) with fewer and fewer people doing the work of the whole, the people tire, many leave (high turnover), health claims and lawsuits increase, and the competitive position of the university declines in the long term.

The next figure gives some idea of typical dysfunctions from structures and behavioral adaptations NMSU has been making in last few decades.

4_leaf_with_arrows

Figure 1: Four-Leaf Clover Model of Hidden Costs relation to Dysfunctions in Structures and Behaviors

 

Individual, Group, and Collective Behaviors à become routine normalized Structures in NMSU daily routine (Physical, Technological, Organizational, Demographic, & Mental) à which accumulate more and more bureaucratic BPR Dysfunctions (Working Conditions, Work Organization, Communication-Cooperation-Coordination [3C’s], Time management, Training, and Strategic implementation deficits) and result in Hidden Costs (HCs) that are not tracked in the overall NMSU budget or information systems upon which hard choices and decisions are made). The HCs are deeply rooted in the effective day-to-day performance of NMSU and its socioeconomic results relative to our 15 peer institutions.

 

The next Table gives an overall way of doing what we call ‘Mirror Effect’ looking in the mirror as NMSU, at the qualitative and quantitative results of hidden costs.


 

Table 1: General Model of Hidden Cost Calculation

 

5 Indicators of Dysfunctions:

Components
Over-Salary

1

Excess Time

2

Over-Compensation

3

Non-production

4

Non-creation of Potential

5

Total Hidden Costs

1+2+3+4+5

RISKS TO NMSU
Absenteeism              
Accidents              
Turnover              
Non-Quality              
Productivity Variance              
TOTAL Excess salary from 5 indicators Overtime from 5 indicators Over-consumption from 5 indicators Non-production form 5 indicators Non-creation of potential from 5 indicators TOTAL HIDDEN COSTS Risks from all 5 Indicators

 

The next table is an illustration of hypothesized NMSU ‘Hidden Cost’ (HC) calculations in the next table. Note, this is not a final calculation. Rather it is for illustrative purposes, so you get an idea of the Mirror Effect of staring at the qualitative and quantitative data on how many dysfunctions produce what kinds of HCs. The purpose is to target HCs (costs & lost revenue, & lost human potential) in NMSU as a whole that can be addressed (resolved) in the projects to made NMSU a high performance, high quality, and de-bureaucratized institution of higher education.

Table 2: Illustration of Hypothesized ‘Hidden Cost Calculation’ at NMSU

 

5 Indicators of Dysfunctions:

Components
Qualitative examples Quantitative examples

 

Over-Salary

1

Excess Time

2

Over-Compensation

3

Non-production (lost revenue)

4

Non-creation of [human] Potential

5

Total Hidden Costs

1+2+3+4+5

RISKS TO NMSU
Absentee People from Downsizing, etc. People left & not replaced; Higher paid administrators micromanage remaining faculty, 7% more time to get things done by those left $600000 300000 500000 1000000 500000 $2,900,000  
Accidents More health claims from stress of overwork 5% more health claims $70000 200000 100000 200000 300000 $870,000  
Turnover High turnover faculty due to low morale, uncertainty of change, & frozen salaries 20% more Cost of training students to do work of staff; staff to do work of faculty who left $200000 100000 600000 300000 900000 $2,100,000  
Non-Quality Less qualified people (student workers, etc. pitch in but with weaker results 20% more costs of Faculty and graduate student teachers, and temps (visitors) filling in for classes of missing faculty $400000 300000 400000 2000000 800000 $3,900,000  
Productivity Variance Since everyone is doing work of the missing personnel, much of the work of teaching and research, and coordination falls through the cracks 10% loss in NMSU reputation, which means fewer students & faculty willing to come he $900000 600000 700000 300000 800000 $3,300,000  
TOTAL   Excess salary from 5 indicators Overtime from 5 indicators

 

Over-consumption from 5 indicators Non-production form 5 indicators Non-creation of potential from 5 indicators TOTAL HIDDEN COSTS Risks from all 5 Indicators

Add 2 million more in lawsuits

 

    $2,170,000 1500000 2300000 3800000 3300000 $13,070,000 $15,070,000

The above table is just for illustrative purposes. Final list of dysfunctions and number would depend on the work of project team doing the participative interviews, archival research, and qualimetric analyses.

Here is a summary model of SEAM. Three forces of changes are implemented at once, starting from the center of each Axis and moving outward.

3-axes

Figure 2 – Model of SEAM intervention teams

 

The three axes (forces of change) uplift NMSU simultaneously. Spiral A is implementation of successive short-term, self-financing projects to unleash human potential by diagnosing NMSU hidden costs and their dysfunctions (see clover at center of model). This is done with the DPIE approach to building upward positive self-financing momentum to unleash human potential at NMSU.

Figure 3: Implementing successive DPIE’s (Diagnosis-Project Design-Implementation-Evaluation cycles) to rebuild NMSU Momentum

 

Spiral B consists of implementing six straightforward and pragmatic tools to coordinate the interventions and keep them sustainable.

 

Spiral C is the developing the overall strategic changes to the rules of the game of strategy at NMSU. Without changing the rules of the game, shuffling people between departments, merging departments, cutting personnel here and there, will have no sustainable long time performance result.

 

The three axes of change (A, B, C in Figure 1) begin with the diagnosis, which in participative, democratic involvement of students, faculty, staff, workers, and administrators. In the joint project teams using DPIE (Figure 2) they begin with an analysis of the dysfunctions (Figure 3 top leaf), the structures and behaviors (left and right leaf) that drive the dysfunctions (bottom leaf), and are atrophying the deep root stems (excess salary, overtime, over consumption of time, financial, and material resources, non-production of education and research, non-creation of human potential (of students, faculty, staff, administrators, and workers), and creating risk of socioeconomic failure, lawsuits, loss of federal funding, loss of state funding, and loss of accreditation.

abcseammodelwithdpie

Figure 4: Root Causes of Financial Consequences from the Runaway Hidden Costs and Dysfunctions at NMSU

 

Here are some examples of how the three axes of change (Figure 1) are implemented using the diagnostic framework (Figure 2).

 

  1. Diagnosis-Project-Implementation-Evaluation (DPIE). By each project team doing a series of DPIE’s we rebuild NMSU momentum and put it in a path of increase performance by releasing human potential. Our DPIE projects would finance themselves through hidden cost reductions that generate long-term university performance gains, and slowly change the NMSU structures and behaviors, and the rules of the game of NMSU strategy implementation. Rather than lowering wages and salaries and just widening spans of administrative control without diagnosis, with out input from the NMSU workforce or students (Deloitte approach) we actually build joint teams of faculty, students, staff, workers, and administrators into project teams. Rather than top down arbitrary appointments, we invite each college, and each department (if they choose) to voluntarily self-organize project teams. We also do this in operational units, financial units, auxiliary units, and so on, throughout the university. We ask them to head to the libraries on main campus and check out copies of the budget and salaries of NMSU, and get geared up to understand the actual financial picture of NMSU.

 

  1. Priority Action Plan (PAP). Each team of faculty, staff, administrators, and students would develop a PAP, after doing a diagnosis of hidden costs, then propose small scale projects of redesign by making successive modification in such areas as work organization, working conditions, communication-cooperation-coordination (hereafter, 3C’s), time management, training, and strategy implementation that increases quality performance. These would be self-financing interventions from diagnosing hidden costs of various NMSU dysfunctions, adapting both the NMSU structures and patterns of human behavior, to lower hidden costs that gets us into a better competitive and quality performance position. Rather than lowering wages, we actual cut hidden costs of NMSU (bureaucratic) dysfunctions in order to increase rewards for all. See Appendix A for example of simple organizing form to use. The PAP is short-term (say six months) and the next tool is longer term.

 

  1. Internal-External Strategic Action Plan (IESAP). Instead of one grand 2020 strategic plan, with goals flowing from on high, without our active democratic participation as students, faculty, staff, and workers à let’s have let’s implement a participative and democratic approach. This can be implemented in each college, each department (if they choose), each operational and auxiliary unit (if they choose). Internal refers to the internal world of NMSU, and external to our performance relative to other universities, our accreditation bodies, our state legislature, and our international community. See Appendix B for sample of IESAP tool.

 

  1. Competency Grid (CG). The CG is done before and after the change initiative. Rather than eliminating, dismissing, or downsizing people employed at NMSU, their competencies are developed through coaching and training. For example, during the Great Depression, Lincoln Electric refused to dismiss workers to achieve budget control. Instead the assessed needed competencies to get where they needed to be to keep everyone employed. They actually retrained a good many workers on the factory floor making welders, and trained them in sales. They did sales, increased sales during an economic downturn, and everyone kept their jobs. They also shared in the rewards of bringing about economic sustainability. In our NMSU implementation instead of encouraging folks to leave, or retire early, etc., the idea of CG is to assess competencies needed to achieve PAP and IESAP results, then get them the training and coaching, and assess the results after the training is don. See Appendix C for sample of CG tool.

 

  1. Periodically Negotiated Activity Contracts (PNAC). This is a major change for NMSU. It is sharing some percent of the savings in hidden cost reductions with the students, faculty, workers, administrators, and staff members who actually bring that change about. Releasing human potential means rewarding human potential. It is a contract negotiated with the administration and the members of the university bringing about changes. It rewards quality improvements, increases in outcomes, and increases in university performance. It can begin with small rewards, and as everyone trusts the system, be expanded. See Appendix C of this document for example of PNAC tool

 

There are two other tools, such as time management and the logbook (see links):

 

Discussion

 

The SEAM alternative to Team 6 ties well to Mary Parker Follett’s ideas of integrative unity, democratic governance, shared responsibility, and power-with rather than power-over. It is also a way to bargain, to negotiate change by negotiating reward in an integrative manner of conflict resolution.

follett_formula

Figure 5: How Mary Parker Follett key dialectic concepts

 

Mary Parker Follett, has this Notion of the dialectic, where the common purpose of a group (organization or society) can allow ‘invisible leaders’ (they are not people, but something non-corporeal), allows the kind of power-with, so that group, we (Rosile, Boje, & Inez, 2016) are calling ELT, can obey the situation.

There are a few more Notions that Follett draws from Hegel’s dialectical development approach.

follett_elt

Figure 6 – How ELT relates to Six Key Notions of Follett’s Dialectic

 

Follett wanted to resolve conflicts by integrative unity, rather than by domination or by forcing ‘compromises.’ Genuine democracy is not majority rule, not that shallow vote sort of democracy, rather its having groups that self-organize, self-manage, and are at the community level, and the backbone of a business, or a university. The Law of the Situation, is as they say in Dragnet ‘Just the Facts’ but it’s a jointly studied Situation, and an agreement by all parties, all sides, to do co-inquiry into the facts of the Situation, including how the Situation is emerging, changing, and moving along. Celebrate diversity, means treating differences and diversity of cultures as an assets, rather than trying to eliminate diversity, integrate the differences, into something creative in what we now call Problem-Based-Learning (in Denmark). Grow your power-with, avoid power-over, and learn that no one can empower you, you have to Self-Empower your own Self by gaining capacity for power. Invisible Leaderà Common Purpose means that the Situation itself is the ‘invisible leader’ and by scientific co-study, joint-projects of inquiry across divides, it is possible to create common purpose, which for me, is the basis and foundation of Ensemble Leadership.

“To me, this comes out in Follett’s appreciation of Hegel’s dialectic. Its not the tired old saw of these-antithesis-synthesis. The point of Hegelian dialectic is there is no synthesis, as Follett puts it, just continuously evolving Situation in a play of differences in the Whole Situation” (See blog post How to Implement Ensemble Leadership Practices at a Public University? And blog post What is Relationship of Ensemble Leadership Theory to Hegel’s and Mary Parker Follett’s Dialectic? for more on this point).

The result of successive DPIE implementation in a short time (say six months) by each project team is that the momentum of change and adaptation becomes a positive upward spiral of breadth and potential that will change game rules of overall NMSU performance.

 

Conclusion

 

I believe that together we can initiate a viable alternative to Team 6 (Deloitte strategy). I think at the very least let both Team 6 and SEAM teams co-exist, and assess which actually delivers the goods.

 

NMSU has an addiction to bureaucracy, and addition to central planning of others jobs, an addition to micromanagement administration. In SEAM, we call this the doctrine of Taylorism-Fayolism-Weberism, or for short the TFW Virus. To break an addition of TFW, it takes a commitment to changing the rules of the game.

 

We can enhance everyone’s professionalism, everyone’s competencies, and develop our human potential for everyone. SEAM is a hopeful approach as way to emancitate us from TFW virus.

 

NMSU;s may dysfunctions are well known, and they are producing hidden costs that are unknown (invisible in our reporting systems as NMSU). Without democratic and scientific diagnosis, and experimentation, we will continue in TFW addiction.

 

We can achieve transparent shared governance with SEAM. We can try a little ‘Ensemble Leadership’ at NMSU (Rosile, Boje, & Nez). Why not give it a try.

 

More resources

(See blog post How to Implement Ensemble Leadership Practices at a Public University? And blog post What is Relationship of Ensemble Leadership Theory to Hegel’s and Mary Parker Follett’s Dialectic? for more on this point).

 

References

 

Boje, D. (2004). Qualimetrics contributions to research methodology. H. Savall & V. Zardet, Recherche en sciences de gestion: approche qualimétrique, Economica, 6-12.

 

Boje, D. M. (2011). An Antenarrative Theory of Socioeconomic in Intervention Research. Pp. 383-394 in D. M. Boje (ed.) Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook. London: Sage.

 

Boje, D., & Rosile, G. A. (2003). Comparison of socio-economic and other transorganizational development methods. Journal of Organizational Change Management16(1), 10-20.

 

Buono, A. F., & Savall, H. (2007). Socio-economic Interventions in Organizations: The Intervener-researcher and the SEAM Approach to Organizational Analysis. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

 

Follett, M. P. (1898). The Speaker of the House of Representatives. Longmans, Green & Co. NY, NY.

 

Follett, M. P., & Hart, A. B. (1902). The Speaker of the House of Representatives with an Introduction by AB Hart. Longmans, Green, & Company.

 

Follett, M. P. (1918). The New State: Group organization the solution of popular government. University Park, PN: Penn State Press.

 

Follett, M. P. (1919). Community is a process. The Philosophical Review28(6), 576-588.

 

Follett, M. P. (1924/1930). Creative Experience. Рипол Классик; NY/London: Longmans, Green and Co. on line at http://ww.pqm-online.com/assets/files/lib/books/follett.pdf

 

Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. Scientific foundations of business administration, 156-162.

Follett, M. P. (1941). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, edited by Metcalf, H. C., & Urwick, L. F. NY/London: Harper and Brothers.

 

Follett, M.P. (1949.1987). Freedom and Co-ordination. Lectures in Business Organization. Edited, with an Introduction by L. Urwick. NY/London: Garland Publishing.

 

Hayes, R., Ertel McGilsky, D., & Lepisto, L. (2007). An interdisciplinary management consulting concentration to develop the AICPA core competencies and meet the 150-hour requirement. In Advances in Accounting Education Teaching and Curriculum Innovations (pp. 93-114). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

 

Rosile, Grace Ann; Boje, David M.; Nez, Carma Claw. (2016). “Ensemble Leadership Theory: Collectivist, Relational, and Heterarchical Roots from Indigenous Contexts.” Leadership journalCLICK HERE for online PDF

 

 

 

Ruvalcaba, M. F. (2007). SOCIO-ECONOMIC APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT IN MEXICO. Socio-economic Interventions in Organizations: The Intervener-researcher and the SEAM Approach to Organizational Analysis, 251.

 

Savall, H. (2003a). An updated presentation of the socio-economic management model. Journal of Organizational Change Management16(1), 33-48.

 

Savall, H. (2003b). International dissemination of the socio-economic method. Journal of Organizational Change Management16(1), 107-115.

 

Savall, H., & Peron, Michel. (2015). Socially Responsible Capitalism (No. hal-01140272).

 

Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2008). Mastering hidden costs and socio-economic performance. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

 

Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2011). The qualimetrics approach: Observing the complex object. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

 

Savall, H., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., & Moore, R. (2001). A system-wide, integrated methodology for intervening in organizations. Current trends in management consulting1, 105.

 

Smith, William L., David M. Boje, and Taylor W. Foster III. (2011). “On the tetranormalization of US GAAP and IFRS: A socioeconomic approach.” Proceedings of the American Accounting Association (AAA) 1: 27.

 

Worley, C. G., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., & Savall, A. (2015). Becoming Agile: How the SEAM Approach to Management Builds Adaptability. John Wiley & Sons.

 

 


 

Appendix A: PAP

PAP (Priority Action Plan)

Team Name________________________________________ duration: 6 MONTHS

þ-Clarify High Value-Added Sustainability Tasks to Implement/Continue

☐-Identify Low Value-Added (Un) Sustainability Tasks to Eliminate

–Implement tasks that stem from external strategy (who it involves)

ý-Tasks that prevent Unsustainable dysfunctions (tackle difficult internal strategy)

STRATEGIC AXES OBJECTIVES PRIORITY ACTIONS PEOPLE CONCERNED FORCAST PLANNING 6 months METRICS: Qualitative & Quantitative
J F M A M J
Our Team’s Collective Target

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ☐-

 

☐-

 

☐-

☐-

☐-

☐-

☐-

 

            ☐-
Our Team’s Mission Target

 

 

 

 

☐- ☐-

☐-

☐-

☐-

          ☐-
Our Team’s Vision Target

 

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

 

          ☐-
Our Team’s Operations Targets

 

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

☐-

          ☐-
Our Team’s Research Targets

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

          ☐-
Our Team’s Strategic Targets

 

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-.

☐-

☐-

.

            ☐-
Team Member 1

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

        ☐-
Team Member 2

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

            ☐-
Team Member 3

 

 

 

☐- ☐- ☐-

☐-

 

          ☐-

 

Add team members…                    

Appendix B

IESP (Internal/External Strategic Plan)

OBJECTIVES 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
OBJECTIVE 1:

 

                 
Actions to fight against depletion of resources

 

               
OBJECTIVE 2:

 

                   
Actions to increase human potential                    
OBJECTIVE 3:

 

                   
Actions that create SUSTAINABILITY                    

Please move the arrows and resize to indicate time horizon for each objective and action. Edit actions above as needed, but have at least one GREEN one.

 

 

APPENDIX C: CG TOOL (note: the items are for illustration)

COMPETENCY GRID BEFORE THE CHANGE
  Traditional Competencies in old objectives New Competencies to be Acquired
WORKERS Green Product Design Green Supply Chain Materials Recycling Energy Savings Product Knowledge Contracts Project Management Customer Service
A n n n
B n n n
C   n     n
D n    
E n n n n  
F n   n n  

 

COMPETENCY GRID AFTER THE CHANGE
A n n n n n
B n n n n n
C n n   n
D n n
E n n n n n n
F n n n n n n n

 

n=Frequently Practiced =Occasional Practiced/Not all Mastered

=Knowledge of Principles without Practice BLANK= No Knowledge or Practice

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

PNAC (Periodically Negotiated Activity Contract)

NAME:________________________________ for 6 MONTHS

þ-Focus on your targets; negotiate ways to do them; rewards sought for achieving target levels

☐-PNAC connects with PAP, Strategic Indictors & Economic Balance

–Economic balances compare cost of means to reach objective with returns once targets have been attained (in terms of potential gains)

ý-$$ incentives self-financed by reduction in hidden costs

Types of Objectives Objectives Weighting (of 100% total) Target Level Means Metrics
CLIENT’S GENERAL TARGET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
CLIENT’S

COLLECTIVE PRODUCTION TARGET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
Your TEAM TARGET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
INDIVIDUAL # 1 TARGET 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
INDIVIDUAL # 2 INDIVIDUAL TARGET 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
INDIVIDUAL # 3 INDIVIDUAL TARGET 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐- ___% What: How: ☐-
INDIVIDUAL # 4 INDIVIDUAL TARGET 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

☐-2 Book project ___% What? How: ☐-

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements