Pactify - one pagers slide deck

Any manager needs to re-invent his/ her
organisation when …
-2-
© 2016 Pactify Software. All rights reserved.
The behaviour you want
(i.e. the one you expect as a result
of your decisions, rules, structures,
systems, processes …)
The behaviour you “get”
I.e. the real drive, focus, goal
orientation, rigor, compliance …
“in the (heat of the) action”
1) … there is a growing gap between:
(or thinks it can only be closed by
even more decisions, rules, structures, …)
2) … he/ she cannot really explain this gap any more

Why “push down the thinking” in your organisation ?
•Thinking is the only good way to start any engaged, goal focused ACTION
– At least when given a minimum of time and autonomy to do so
•Given the increasing complexity of business …
– … more and more of the key answers lie somewhere down into the organisation
– … it’s REALLY no option to face that complexity with a group that doesn’t have the habit to think!
-3-

4 very effective ways for more engagement
- without having to go to a coach -
and from within the work you do:
1. Being asked to solve a problem instead of executing the solution invented elsewhere
2. Being allowed to find your way to get going, without being pushed (i.e. in autonomy)
3. Doing things that are slightly more difficult than what you think you’re capable of
4. Experiencing that you REALLY make (cool) progress (through your own transparency)
-4-
Imagine the difference if work would be organised like this … for everyone … the entire year!
• Difference in engagement AND in results !
• (Including the difference in coaching costs ;-) )

How NOT to do it:
• Only use high reach/ low value communication:
– Send emails to request all kinds of things
– Send mass mail, non-customised, “thank you’s”
• Only talk to a system (e.g. “SAP”) about your work
• “Assume” that the other side “should know that”
How to do it (consistently):
• Open the door that is there … to:
– Show interest/ ask an opinion
– Talk& think something through, repeatedly
– Help the other in his/ her task
• They will return the favour
• More of the frustrating stuff will get done
-5-
Getting through the walls (horizontally& vertically)

“ It’s the behaviour stupid ! ”
Behaviour, and ONLY behaviour, can explain the difference between:
-6-
What you want:
Your strategy to be implemented
Your decisions to be followed
Your idea’s to become reality
…
What you “get”
Your actual P&L & dividendΔ ?

The most insightful business statistic to develop
on a weekly basis:
What % of our
time did we
spend on …
-7-
Take 10 mins during the week to assess these 2 percentages, do it together, discuss the
trendline, conclude with actions& repeat this exercise every 52 Friday afternoons of the year
… talking “around” things?
• Repeating the same (known) opinions
• Finding excuses/ blaming people
• Complaining
• …
… actually doing things?
• Acting
• Thinking about the best way to act
In other words: where did
we choose to spend our
energy& intelligence on ??
x% 100-x%

Message to all employees who find that their job is boring:
• Challenge yourself for 10 minutes to come up with …
– … 3 possible specific, new goals you could set, for doing the work you do
– For any of the 3: at least 3 different ways on HOW to get there (i.e. in what steps)
• Why ?
– Finding your engagement starts with the creativity of mind to see more& richer options within
the same (job)frame
– And with a 100% guarantee:
• IF YOU:
– Try the most appealing of the 9 options out … (3 goals x 3 different ways for every one)
– … and teach yourself on the go to see clearer how you make progress …
– … and avoid quitting at the point you’re used to quit …
• … YOU WILL get more engaged !
-8-

What focus leads to the best results ?
“We need the right CV in the right place!”
-9-
The recruiter
The manager
The leader
“We need the right person in the right place!”
“How do we get the right behaviour in the right place?”

An approach to ensure a stronger alignment
between:
-10-
Any strategic (or operational)
choice/ decision/ roadmap
E.g. a growth strategy, a cost
reduction rationale& plan, an
investment decision, …
The actual behaviour
I.e. how choices & decisions
implemented, sustained,
respected “in the action”
The actual impact

Engagement has everything to do with
how YOU DECIDE to look at YOUR work
-11-
© 2016 Pactify Software. All rights reserved
I am engaged … I am disengaged …
… when I decide myself, everyday, to look at my work as …
… a continuous opportunity to make
myself better at what I do …
… by focussing my energy on the part I CAN
control, i.e. HOW I do the work I do:
continuously set clear (interim) goals, plan,
try, learn, try again& understand what really
led to the progress I make
… a continuous confirmation that I don’ t
need to/ never will become better at what I
do …
… by focusing my (negative) energy
only on the part I can NOT control:
complaining about the orders I get,
the information I did not get, the
limitations of my job scope, the other
people around me, ...

A fundamental question for any leader – and its implications
-12-
© 2016 Pactify Software. All rights reserved
What’s the best “inspiration” for
your people’s actions?
Implications on how to design and run your
organisation
Control ?
Comfort ?
A higher purpose (the “WHY”) ?
The experience that they’re good
at what they do (FLOW) ?
Focus on structures, roles, responsibilities, KPIs,
rules, systems, policies, …
Focus on coaching/ training programs. Creating a
safe/ positive/ collegial work atmosphere
Focus on inspirational leadership. Lots of
communication/ interaction around the vision& purpose
Focus on behaviour (how do/did we get to results?)
Organise the work itself differently:
• Problems/ targets/ goals not matched to the
“appropriate” hierarchical level, but to the team that
has the specific (current or potential) skill to deliver
• More autonomy on how people make progress, in
exchange for transparency
• More coaching “in the action”/ not in the HR office
The question
1
2
3
4

When consulting projects fail …
What we didn’t intend, but what eventually always happens:
-13-
The
consultant
Step 1:
The sponsors hiring
the consultant
The “group” that is
asked to be involved
in the project
Sponsors hire consultant to help solve a problem together
Step 2: Consultant promises to do it together with the group
Step 3: Time& expectations force consultant to “take over”
– Less& less time to co-develop with the group
– Doing more& more of the thinking in their place
– “Assume” that their plans match the skill of the group
Step 4: When it’s implementation time:
– The consultant leaves
– The group
• “Remembers” they were not involved in the thinking
• “Discovers” plans they’re not up to deliver
Step 5: Loss of time, drive and impact
As a sponsor, you did NOT get what you wanted& paid for!

An important difference…
-14-
A manager A leader
Does the thinking in your place Encourages YOUR thinking

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, founder of the “Flow” concept:
i.e. the state of maximum performance& engagement
(for individuals/ teams)
-15-

Two individual “attitudes” that kill both performance& engagement
-16-
Perceived skill
Perceived difficulty
Self-pity that your role is boring /
not seeking yourself to make it
more challenging
Refusal to show
what you’re
really capable of
Actively seeking what
challenge is going to make
you better, continuously
1
2

“Flow” = the ONLY path from your comfort zone to “the magic”
-17-© 2016 Pactify Software. All rights reserved.
Perceived skill
Perceived
difficulty
Your comfort
zone
Where the
real magic
happens!
Your day-
to-day job
BOREDOM ZONE
FRUSTRATION
ZONE
Take the time to start to think, about possible ways that
could get you to the goal
Ask different people’s thoughts, multiple times
Come up with first, concrete idea’s& logic
Try something/evaluate how it went/ go on
Making it even more difficult when you focus
on (i) own excuses, complaints, confusion, …
& (ii) your boss’ reminders (as nothing moves)
?
A new goal to achieve,
ordered by your boss
!
Goal presented as invitation to solve
something, plus autonomy given to find
yourself how you can get into action

The different “grades” of problem solving/ thinking in a transformation
Key question for the transformation sponsor at the start
Which part of the thinking is done by
sponsor/ consultant … versus by the
teams themselves ?
Define the big
transformation
goals for the
organisation
(& the why)
?
Define how
they break
down into
sub-goals
(&the why)
Define how
those break
down into
concrete
project
goals
Formulate
the specific
project
goal& the
approach
for success
Ju DeDo Im
Status
Justify the
(business)
case& find
the alignment
for a decision
to launch
Define the
milestones of
real progress
(decisions/
deliverables/
issue fixes)
Define who
needs to do
what to
achieve the
milestones
(the actions)
Define where
you stand&
what you
need to make
progress
(at any time)
From the top (sponsor/ consultant) From teams themselves
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The PMO+ “guards” this point to
ensure that, at some point, teams
start thinking without the option to let
the boss/ consultant do that for them!

The different “grades” of problem solving/ thinking in a transformation
Key question for the transformation sponsor at the start
Define the big
transformation
goals for the
organisation
(& the why)
?
Define how
they break
down into
sub-goals
(&the why)
Define how
those break
down into
concrete
project
goals
Formulate
the specific
project
goal& the
approach
for success
Ju DeDo Im
Status
Justify the
(business)
case& find
the alignment
for a decision
to launch
Define the
milestones of
real progress
(decisions/
deliverables/
issue fixes)
Define who
needs to do
what to
achieve the
milestones
(the actions)
Define where
you stand&
what you
need to make
progress
(at any time)
From the top (sponsor/ consultant) From teams themselves
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
When you push these “thinking” levels down, you start up
a distributed leadership development track
When you push these “thinking”
levels down, you start up a
execution performance track

Cooperation = a definition
The collective habit to systematically take more care of the whole than of the parts
-20-
You need a minimum of
people that do it
•Cannot do it alone
•Every function& layer has to
be in
In everything we do
• Both in “bus as usual” as in
strategy definition& execution
• In anything we do, from “taking
complex decisions” to “writing
each other an email”
It is a way of behaving
• It’s NOT a rule, policy,
strategy, measurable KPI,
well meant intention/
promise, …
The interest of the
organisation as a whole
• How is the organisation
better off ?
Individual/ departmental
goals, KPIs, interests, …
The whole is leading, more so than
the parts
• … but NOT neglecting the parts …
• Allowing 1+1 to be 3 or more, by:
-Everyone helping anyone else get
better in his/ her part
-By taking difficult shared decisions
together

Want to really predict/ influence results ? Understand HOW all
ingredients of management COME TOGETHER in the action!
Basic
ingredients to
manage/
organise work
Insights
Idea’s, strategies,
vision, …
Resources
People, skills, …
Structure/ logic
Roles, rules, processes, measurements,
reporting, incentives, alignment, top-down or
bottom-up?, giving autonomy?, …
The resulting
ACTUAL
behavior
“Working apart
together”
&
Autonomy
refused
Cooperation
“in the action”
&
Autonomy
accepted
The ACTUAL
performance/
results !
CRUCIAL to understand what
behaviour is triggered when these
things come together “in the action”
Neglecting this will always
leave you surprised when
seeing the actual results …

A 3 way logic to drive more cooperation in an organisation
(collectively& systematically)
-22-
Give more autonomy
to teams to cooperate
twds clear goals…
… in exchange for
their transparency…
… with the right controls&
help so cooperation “sticks”,
as a new, sustainable behaviour
•Format the work in a
PROJECT based logic
- A start, end & clear goal
- Even in “bus as usual”
•Mandate teams to own
(more) specific goals:
- …key project decisions
- …full project execution
- OR even …solve a key
strategic problem (iso
giving your solution)
•Give them the pen
- So they cannot hide and THEIR thinking is
stimulated all the way (aot just “saying yes”)
•So they come to common, transparent ...
- … formulation of their goal (& justification)
- … real-time insight on HOW they get closer
•In one place: a PLATFORM that is
transparent to all participants
•In a PROCESS they cannot hide from
•With “PMO+” support, mandated to
learn teams how to
- Organise work so skill& difficulty is
always in balance
- Set clear goals that trigger focused
action
- Create their own progress feedback
(through their pen) that provides a
stronger experience of progress
•So going from stimulated towards
sustainable autonomy& cooperation
- I.e. “Flow” & “Group Flow”
1 2 3
HOW? The 4 P’s of Pactify (Project/ Platform/ Process/ PMO+)

“To cooperate or not?” That’s the question ! – “The 15 buttons”
… cooperate ? … “work apart together” ?
OR
What is my motivation to …
•A mandatory process to drive
progress more “together”
–Structured/ recognisable/ relevant
•Convert work into a structured,
goal based operating system
–Network of “sticks in the ground”
(program goals>project goals
>milestones), with specific
accountabilities& to track progress
•The obligation of transparency on
HOW you go from “stick to stick”
–Where to start helping if you don’t
know how people progress ?
•A moderator for the process
–To help adoption/ force compliance
–Help to find the “sticks” in flow:
always slightly more difficult vs skill
•The (constructive) group habit to
put pressure on me to cooperate
-The interest I have in knowing who
the others are& how they work
-My focus on how different we are
(conflicting KPIs, goals, habits, …)
•Creating too many rules/ KPIs/
systems/… inside the structures
that need to cooperate
•My role states general activities,
no deliverables/ accountabilities
-I can pick to do what my direct mgr
will mostly reward
•My role is too vague ... or too strict
•1-way, shallow interaction between
structures, so unclear how my
contributions add to the whole
–Only focus on “what” not “how”
•Mainly politics gets things done
Things that make it difficult
for me NOT to cooperate
Things that do NOT motivate
me to cooperate
Things that make me enjoy
cooperation
A
B
C1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
3
4
5
6
2
7
5
•A financial incentive on shared
results
•Actively contributing to setting
clear, meaningful, shared goals
- Not: someone else invents a goal
for you, but: you solve a problem
together that leads to the goal
•Real-time transparency on (i)
collective progress& (ii)
everyone’s contribution in it
–I.e. how people make progress/
help/ get through tough decisions
–Progress “In Flow”: the “sticks”
always slightly more difficult that
the team’s skills
–From everyone’s own pen

Cooperation: all places where it can happen ….
-24-
… solve problems with all stakeholders, long
& deep enough, continuously (“rumination”)
•Align on strategy by actively& transparently
contributing to the creation of it
“Cooperation”
= the collective habit to …
“Working Apart Together”
= the collective habit to …
In strategy
definition
In execution:
•How
decisions
are taken
•How you
interact
(meetings)
… invent all solutions entirely at the top,
in a heavy, short, one-off exercise
• Align on the solution by imposing it (using
the hierarchical power to do so)
… find a decision that makes the
organisation/ project better off
•Not only& always strongest one on the team
…be transparent on HOW you made and want
to make progress
•On individual engagements & requests for help
•On all individual contributions to shared results
…use the transparency to help the others in
their progress
… come to decision by weighing powers
… be continuously alert on how the others
can contribute to progress of the meeting
• Agenda/ meeting principles/ preparation/ …
... focus only on own agenda& opinions,
and how to deploy your power/ position
to optimally drive them home
• Long, ineffective meetings
… be intransparent on HOW you make
(or fail to make) shared progress
… escalate problems upwards too
quickly
•How
progress is
made
… be able to do so without having to
escalate all the time
… not help the others get better
• Focus on your specific tasks, without
focus on how you can add to the whole
… not think enough on HOW to optimally
progress, only on “who should do what?”
… find the optimum, joint “flow” of progress
•Not too easy/ difficult, with aligned contributions

A simple truth as basis of our approach to change way of working
“Prescribe WHAT people should achieve”
• “What – focus”
• Focus on top down solutions, clear rules,
accountabilities, KPIs, …
• Less& less output when work gets complex
• Little insight in how it’s done
– No/ little skill improvements
• “Working Apart Together” (dividing the work)
“Ask HOW they want to achieve something”
• “How-focus”
• Focus on the action itself
• More thinking, more regularly, by more people
• More insight to help them do it
• People that get better & better at what they do
• Stronger trigger for autonomy and cooperation
Two different ways to get work done … … result in 2 very different behaviours

The problem with developing a consistent “how-focus”
• Managers cannot do this alone, it takes too much time
– First priority will always by managing “the what”, only after that comes “the how”
– Esp. when complexity and expectations increase
• We often start out like this but we tend not to pursue it as a structural way of working
– Giving autonomy for ideation (brainstorming), …
– But when we see that autonomy is not accepted, we fall back in control reflex (naturally
and logically)
-26-
So the question is:
How to turn around the “what” into the “how-focus”, systematically ?
Not immediately everywhere but gradually …
• … more& more of the time ?
• … in more& more of the work we do ?
• … with more& more people ?

How a transparent program structure with “what” and “how”
focus looks like
Drive cost
efficiency
DeJuDo
Implement SSC for
finance functions
Outsource
AP
Deal
signed
Operations
transferred
All transfer
issues solved
…
…
…
…
Project
end
Impact
TODAY
Milestones
Actions
“Programs”
What focus
How focus
What the big milestones are
What the KPIs are
How the project is clarified,
justified& convinced at the start
How progress is made& planned
• Every next significant step of
progress (milestones: choices,
deliverables, solutions, …)
• Everyone’s contribution to taking
that step (actions)
“Sub Programs”
“Initiatives”
What the big goals are

When we do NOT cooperate (like in a hierarchy) …
• … only defend our own positions when we need
to align …
• … only handover/ order/ push down our own
solutions …
• … just stick to the rules and apply them …
• …always divide work into the assigned
responsibles ...
-28-
• … think longer together first, about what it
takes to collectively make progress
• … instead of actively/ intensively involving
people in the development of solutions
• … instead of judging the context to decide
what’s best
• … divide work so it allows optimal “progress”,
not necessarily following responsibility lines
… we tend to … … instead of …
… realise FAR LESS with FAR MORE resources
• And this gets exponentially worse when business becomes more complex …
• … only look at what is done (or not done)
– Incl. only feedback on what’s done (not how)
• … instead of look at how things are done
– To understand how you can add to it
– To help each other continuously get better

The four progressive stages of cooperation
-29-
• Do not really know
each other
A troup
• Have basic knowledge
on each other
A group
• Know each other well
A team
• Know& trust each other
A leadership
team
Cooperation (“Group Flow”)
• Almost no exchange/
interaction
• Team members do not
know what the others
do
• Inform each other on
what part of the work
they do
• No further interaction
than informing
• Coordinate how the
different separate
pieces of work come
together
• In case of coordination
issue: they escalate
upwards
• Make progress as 1 entity,
not as separate actors
• Help others on their parts of
the work
• Make difficult decisions
together (solve problems
instead of escalating them)
• Immediate feedback on
progress, in the action,
drives their next moves
• Reject any shared goal • Acknowledge a shared
goal
• Formally align to a
shared goal
• Actively contribute to
developing the shared goal
The same strategy/ idea’s/ goals, with the same people, skills& competences
have very different actual outcomes … depending on the actual stage of cooperation:
How strongly I experience the “use to cooperate”

Our collective systematic is needed for 4 reasons
-30-
Better alternative for the “classical” collective systematic which is the vertical hierarchy
• Which is de-motivating autonomy and cooperation
It’s a welcome and needed complement to any authentic leadership style
• As this is a way to leverage that style, into area’s/ levels of detail where “a style” cannot reach on its own
• It fits a great leadership purpose: to want to make your people better and happier at the same time
Differentiation versus any classical “derivative” change management approaches
• Which are all based on rationally convincing you to change, not through experiencing change “in the action”
Differentiation versus the current new way of thinking to only “push” autonomy down (structurally) but
not work on “autonomy acceptance” (Flow)

The problem.
-31-
Growing complexity on the outside
(more difficult to capture value)
What organisational model optimally …
1. … captures the changing complexity?
• Goal setting/ design
2. … translates it into value?
• Execution
In essence:
What model allows to continuously,
collectively get better ?
• Better at turning new complexity into value
Best way to get better : trigger the “Flow
experience” inside the organisation
• Individual Flow (autonomy)
• Team Flow (cooperation)
• Organisational Flow
So it’s more sophisticated than just:
• Breaking down hierarchy
• Pushing autonomy on to people
• Getting new disruptive digital technology
implemented, …

3 components to how any productivity gain is ACTUALLY realised
-32-
ACTUAL
productivity
gains
The target The organisation of the work
to get there
The behaviour
(What people collectively, REALLY do
and HOW they do it)
+ +
• Structures
– Departments/ taskforce …
– Steering committees
• Resource allocation
– “The right man in right place”
• Roles/ rules/ governance
– Empowerment vs. control
• KPIs/ Reporting processes
• Communication/ Training/ HR/ …
• …
•The strategy
•The choices,
big goals& big
milestones, …
Getting most/ all of the attention
Is less& less detrimental to success
Getting few attention
More& more key to success
1 2 3
The design The execution
INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR
Dis-
engaged/
Unfit for the job
No autonomy
• Do at max
what the rules
prescribe
High autonomy
• Self drive, rules
not even needed
TEAMBEHAVIOUR
Cooperation
(1+1=3)
“Working
Apart
Together”
(1+1=2/ less)
Disengaged
“The logic” “The infrastructure” “The real action”

3 “ranges” for every component of actual productivity gains
-33-
ACTUAL
productivity
gains
The target
The organisation of the
work to get there
The behaviour
(What people collectively, REALLY do
and HOW they do it)
+ +
Dis-
engaged/
Unfit for the job
No autonomy
• Do at max
what the rules
prescribe
High autonomy
• Self drive, rules
not even needed
TEAMBEHAVIOUR
Cooperation
(1+1=3)
“Working
Apart
Together”
(1+1=2/ less)
Disengaged
1 2 3
“Effective”
structures,
rules, KPIs, …
“Complicating”
structures, rules,
KPIs, …
“Good”, clear
choices
“Bad”, unclear
choices
Where do you want improve most ? (1/2/3)
“The logic” “The infrastructure” “The real action”

When things get complex: increasing gap between “what you want
to make people do” versus “what they really do”
• Design a strategy / set the overall goals
• Prescribe & communicate what needs to be achieved
• Appoint project responsibles& teams
• Set rules for how to monitor/ report progress (meetings/ formats/ governance)
• Report/ communicate/ steer on the high level progress
• …
• Build a common understanding of the goals, within the team
• Think together on what “milestones” allow concrete progress
– A problem to solve/ required decisions / interim deliverables
• Think together what actions are needed to achieve the milestones
– Make these individual contributions transparent
• Continuously validate progress transparently, in real-time
• Continuously capture feedback from that progress
– To re-think/ re-align
– To grow motivation/ engagement to continue working like that
• Divide the work
• Not know what& how
others do their work
• No continuous
alignment (keep
dividing the work)
MACRO
LEVEL
(how to make
clear what you
expect people
to do)
MICRO
LEVEL
(what
people
REALLY
do)
Higher autonomy& cooperation “Working Apart
Together”
Reality for top management: it eventually always goes wrong or right at MICRO level, NOT at MACRO level

How to make “the work we do” completely Flow-based ?
-35-
Flow
(Autonomy)
Group Flow
(Cooperation)
Organisation
Flow
The work we do
in organisations:
“Business as usual” & “Transforming / Changing”
Thinking
• Problem solving/ targeting
& Doing
• Execution
Required
process
Conditions for
the actual work
that’s done
1 - All actions have clear goals
2 - People capture immediate feedback in the action on how they progress
3 - Actions are not too easy nor too difficult
Required
structural items
Thinking& validating progress together, to avoid:
• Permanent tendency to “Work Apart Together”
• Paralysing debate of “top down vs. bottom up”
One simple and transparent place to work, with participation of many
• All problems to solve, and all goals, in a connected way
• All progress in a clear way, with transparency on how (what& who) it is made
??
Individual focus on
progress twds goal
Collective focus on
progress twds shared goal
System focus on
setting the right goals

Behaviour is a strong, but classically untapped,
driver of productivity
-36-
Disengaged/
Unfit for the job
No autonomy
•Doing at max what
the rules prescribe
High autonomy
•Self drive, rules
not even needed
TEAM
BEHAVIOUR
Cooperation (1+1=3)
•Focus on shared goals
•Helping others get there
•Tough choices together
•Putting own responsibility
before goal of the team
•1+1= 2 or less
Disengaged
HUGE productivity gain if
group (50+ people) moves
here … when they are
working on important goals
for the organisation
“In here, the collective thinking&
doing is sharp, continuous& goal
focused”
Complication: all classical management approaches DO not really help to get there …
• More KPIs, rules, governance, reports, structures, … DO NOT unlock this extra ….

The key flaw of setting up transformations “the classical way”
-37-
The top The group (who executes)
In reality, they do not really pick up the autonomy
- Try to understand first why and how to get it done
Design the transformation
Communicate the launch in the group
Are excited when coming out design phase
Assume that the group is as excited
So, they also assume the group will pick up
autonomy to drive the execution
Seeing autonomy is not picked up, the
only option left is to increase control
Facing more control makes them show even less
drive/ autonomy in execution
Key is NOT to assume that autonomy will be picked up, but to actively drive the acceptance of autonomy
(not in a top down way however, that’s impossible)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
The organisation produces LESS output as a whole …
8

The way to drive behaviour: a smart balance between classical
instruments and Flow
-38-
Classical instruments Instruments to trigger “Flow”
Structures
• Departments/ taskforce …
• Steering committees
Resource allocation
• “The right man in right place”
Roles/ rules/ governance
• Empowerment/ control
KPIs/ Reporting processes
• Communication/ Training/ HR/ …
• …
A process/ platform to drive continuous thinking, focus,
engagement and cooperation WITHIN the classical elements
• Smartly structure work to build thinking, engagement and focus
- Do less top down solutions, more problem solving together
- Ensure actions are not too easy not too difficult
- Ensure all actions have clear goals
• Create feedback logic from within the work, feedback that drives
the behaviour towards more autonomy and cooperation
- Learn teams to create continuous, goal focused transparency
- So that transparency acts as immediate feedback to the team
- That allows managers to help more rather than control
Ensures a minimum output
It works when we do not overdo it
• It’s what people recognise/ are used to
• It works for simple tasks&goals
Autonomy and cooperation is NOT A GIVEN
• It’s something to sustainable train, develop
• If not, and work gets complex, it tens to go the other way
• It CANNOT be obtained by enforcing the classical instruments
- Which we often do, but with opposite effect
Why needed in
the balance ?
Why needed in
the balance ?

What does it mean concretely: changing the “how” of working?
-39-
Indivi-
dually
No/ low autonomy
•Wait until an order/ rule is made clear
•No transparency on how you did something
•Metrics (KPIs) frustrate, don’t trigger action
•Manager feedback is perceived as control
Autonomy
•Think and act before someone can order/ prescribe it
•Make transparent for everyone, in real-time:
– …how you plan progress
– …how you make progress
•Use that transparency as KPI to focus& get better
•Allow mgrs to use that feedback to make you better
In
team
Cooperation (1+1=3)
•Solve problems first, in group, and do as a habit
– Regular, focused interactions on: “how do we best
progress twds the shared goal ?”
– Constructively exploring steps twds solutions
• Help the others in their part of the work
• Make your progress& contributions transparent
•Use that transparency as KPI to focus& get better
•Allow mgrs to use that feedback to make you better
“Working Apart Together” (1+1=2/ less)
•Separate work inside along everyone’s
role, so we can comfortably “work apart”
•Not know the others, nor how they work
•Metrics (KPIs) frustrate, don’t trigger action
•Manager feedback is perceived as control
FROM … TOWARDS
“How” people work

Leadership alignment: a comparison of approaches
-40-
Alignment = result of weighing power &
importance among stakeholders
Alignment = result of solving a problem
together
Initial position:
(on given topic)
Mgr 1 Mgr 2 Mgr 3
Start
Power&
importance vs.
specific position:
Process
Result
Mgr 1
Mgr 2
Mgr 3
• Essentially a negotiation process
- On opinions/ positions, less on content
• Suboptimal trade-off: result of weighing power /
importance only
• You stop thinking together too early
• Forced, one-off exercise, alignment often temporary
• Optimal trade-off: result of hard work& collective
thinking to progress towards solutions/ results
• You delay the point of “no more thinking”
• Continuous alignment “in the action” afterwards
• Behaviour change: from troupe to group to team
Clearly
stated
problem(s)
The
stakeholders to solve it:
Mgr 1/ Mgr 2/ Mgr 3
• Process (fixed iterations) of thinking together
• Transparency on HOW they get closer towards
solutions (trigger for behaviour change)
• Real-time, transparent
portfolio of solutions &
initiatives
Classical
Stakeholders:
Final position:

A simple truth that most classical managers refuse to accept
-41-
The team &
goal you
give them
The ACTUAL
result
The performance gap that is:
• NOT linked to the people !
• NOT linked to the original goal !
… when they
cooperate
… when they “Work
Apart Together”
To drive results up, the essence is cooperation,
and NOT “having the right person in the right place” or having the best strategy

Ways to “put the group at work” to have them accept autonomy
in transformations
The top
The group
(who executes)
Level of autonomy push down
Likelihood of autonomy acceptance
Full top down design
• Consider design as complete
solutions
• No room for group problem
solving
Framework design top down
• Main directions set
• Mandate to solve the “open
items” in cooperation/
transparency
Experience progress& own
contributions in the solutions
• No hiding, transparent
participation
• Helped at your pace
• Transparency on the HOW
Top down progress steering
• Ordering the “what’s done”
• Controlling
Steering in “transparency 2.0”
• Read& ask to know HOW
teams make/ plan progress
• So more inclined to help
rather than control
Experience progress& own
contributions in the outputs
• No hiding, transparent
participation
• Helped at your pace
• Transparency on the HOW
Focus on delivering the WHAT,
not on the HOW
• So no useful feedback
• So no drive, no “getting better”
No experience of having
contributed to the solution
• Even the option to hide

The way of working : the 2 extremes
-43-
Autonomy
• Focused on a clear goal
- Not really needing the role/rule/ … for it
• Action oriented
No autonomy
• Focused on roles/ rules only
- Or excuses
• Turning in circles/ passive/ re-active
True cooperation “Working apart together”
When work gets complex, there
is an organisational tendency to
move here …But here it is more productive
and more engaging !
To get from left to right, you need to generate (and sustain !) collective drive to
change the way of working (it takes energy first to get there!)
Drive from (i) more feedback on how you progress (while you progress), (ii) actions that are goal
focused and (iii) actions that fuel the fire (not too easy nor too difficult)
Flow (autonomy) and Group Flow (cooperation)

Two ways to use the same progress tracking software
As reporting tool
• You must report on what’s done
As “immediate feedback generator” to teams
• You make transparent how progress is made
– The milestones PLUS everyone’s contributions
• If you don’t write, a PMO does it for you
– Info not directly from your pen
• A “PMO+” helps you to learn how to write
– And never does it for you
• Contains what is asked from “above” • Contains the info the top needs to know
• But in a way that it’s also feedback to teams
– Immediately, while doing
– Intrinsic, from everyone’s pen directly
• Makes is logical to only control teams
– No info available on the how
• Teams do not experience a benefit, will
not be driven to improve behaviour
• Makes it logical to help teams
– Info on what and how
• Teams experience benefit: more feedback to
get better at what they do
– Immediate feedback, while doing, intrinsic
– More drive to continue new way of working
The usual way to use software: Another, much better way to use (the same) software:

More autonomy and cooperation starts with the collective habit of
“transparency 2.0”
-45-
Classical transparency (1.0)
• “We tell you so you can execute”
Transparency 2.0 (reversed transparency)
• “You tell us so we can help”
• The collective habit of
– … waiting to be told before thinking
and acting
– … reactive/ late/ incomplete reporting
– … so control is the only consequence
• The collective habit of
– (when you “received” a top down goal)
– … making your thinking& doing
transparent yourself (as individual/ team)
• HOW you formulate a goal together
• HOW to get to the goals
– … in real-time
– … so help is the only consequence
NOTE: the things that DO NOT change collective habits:
• Enthusiasm at the start, ordering it, assuming it, going on a one-off HR training, ….
• The only thing that DOES changes collective habits: an endured, continuous process
- So people do not only understand the “use of it” but start “experiencing” it as well …

HOW it is made transparent: in 3 specific ways
TWO things are made transparent:
“Transparency 2.0”: how it looks like
-46-
In 1 place, clear& relevant to all
• So we all look at the same place,
with the same focus on how to make
progress
The goals for the group
• Incl. how they connect: from hi to low
level goals
From the pen of the contributors
• Not written by someone else
Updated in real time
• When you plan/do/ achieve
• 1 step ahead of when you
have to report
1
43 5
PROGRESS PLANNEDPROGRESS MADE
Do
ImJu De
Do Ju De
Do Ju De
Ju DeDo
Im
Im
Im
The
agenda of
goals
HOW progress is made/ planned
• The milestones (problems/ decisions/ output)
• The actions to achieve the milestones
‒ Incl.: who contributes
2
Milestones Actions

Becoming a good manager is hard, you should not be left
on your own trying to become one
-47-
What a good manager consistently achieves:
Focussing on the WHAT (what needs to get done?)
• Measuring, prescribing, steering, giving feedback
Very hard to combine BOTH, managers cannot do this on their own:
Organisations must develop adjacent processes& systems that allow to improve the HOW as well
• Not through one-off trainings, but: consistently in the action, while people do what they do
• Systems that allow to generate immediate feedback on how progress was made (the key condition for “Flow”)
Making people better at what they do
along the way (incl. engagement)
Getting things done
Is the main focus of any meeting
It’s easy to measure “the WHAT”: ERP, reports, KPIs,…
Straight way to manage it: direct orders& follow-up
“Fairly” do-able (with straight line report at least)
Focussing on the HOW (how do you do it?)
• Observing, dialoguing, joint problem solving, …
Takes more time& energy than the WHAT
• Esp. to do it with everyone
And is even less of a focus (the WHAT comes first)
“Difficult !” (even more without straight line)
How? How?
&
&
&
1 2

The art “not of letting go” but of “shifting your focus”
-48-
The classical situation
• You (as manager) are convinced of something
• You order it to be done that way
• You track and measure if it’s done that way
People perceive you as control freak
No engagement, no transfer of learning
(for the next occasion)
Some may try to convince you “to let go more”
But that is NOT the solution (you will not do this),
instead, you have to shift your focus/ conviction
The best practise situation (shifting the focus)
You do not let go but use the same energy you
have in something more “contagious”
Exaggerating orders is a problem,
exaggerating a common belief is not !
You translate your conviction not in orders
but in allied believers.
If authentic, it builds stronger organisations
or else identify weaknesses/ gaps quicker
• You build a belief that can be shared (something
to collectively be proud of)
• You give more room for people to act (do things)
in line with the belief
• You organise this work for Flow (the 3 conditions)

4 things you need to “flip around” to develop a credible, effective
alternative to command& control
-49-
The boss in command& control The “alternative” for that boss
• “Here is a problem/ opportunity we have,
• … which I’d like you to solve for us
• You provide transparency on HOW you progress
• So, through that transparency :
– I can help you
– You can find the motivation (Flow) to go on like
that
• “Here is my solution …
• …that I want you to implement”
• “I will tell you how to do it
• “So I can check if it’s done that way
“and here is how we’ll organise the work”:

Motivation comes in 2 flavors, organisations mostly only look at 1
-50-
Extrinsic motivation
• Driven by the reward/ punishment avoidance
• Tapped into through:
– Rules/ Roles/ Structures/ KPIs/ procedures/ …
Intrinsic motivation
• Driven by the progress and achievement itself
• “Flow” (autonomy) and “Group Flow” (cooperation)
• Tapped into through:
– Smaller, clear goals for all actions
– Continuous, intrinsic feedback
– Balance skill vs difficulty for all actions
What we try to do in
organisations all the time
What we seldom try in
organisations (at least not in a
continued way)

The output of a hierarchy vs. network type of organisation
-51-
# of rules
inside
Actual
output of the
organisation
Complication inside
& Compromised cooperation
Not enough rules that push
for a minimum of output
More output than a hierarchy,
output is not related to # of rules
A “Flow” based
network organisation
A classical hierarchy
1
2

When you do not measure cooperation, you do not get cooperation
Cooperation: the behaviour where you sacrifice/ offer individually, in serving a shared goal
– Your time, energy, intelligence, … sometimes against your individual goals
Measuring cooperation = measuring how a team behaves in trying to achieve a common goal
• Example: implementing an ERP system
– Measuring cooperation is not measuring time/ cost/ observable progress/ resources/ …
– BUT things like:
• What contributions, from whom, were essential in making the progress?
• Who sacrificed personal time, personal objectives even, for the sake of the shared goal?
• How well was the work spread? Or did the project manager had to do everything?
• Which major stakeholder took a crucial, tough decisions to de-bottleneck the whole thing?
• Who was hiding all the way ? Did he/ she claim their share of the result when it was over ?
• Crucial trick: do not measure their behaviour “for them”, let them make their cooperation
transparent THEMSELVES
– Only then the measurement acts as (highly motivating) intrinsic feedback to the team
-52-
People will only rationally do this when it’s measured, so it can be recognised/ rewarded

3 types of managers – 3 different beliefs about collective behaviour
-53-
Any manager has 1 out of these 3 beliefs regarding collective behaviour:
… a given”
… influence-able
(but from the side)”
… a muscle to actively,
continuously train”
“Type 1” managers “Type 2” managers “Type 3” managers
“You cannot influence behaviour”
… it’s a direct consequence of:
• A clear strategy
• Good structures, KPIs,
systems, processes …
• “The right man in right place”
• Incentives
• ….
“You can influence behaviour”
… but from the side, in one-off
efforts, not in the action:
• Give an inspiring speech
• Send to trainings
• Organise coaching sessions
• Do company events
• …
“Behaviour = a key competitive
advantage to be grown”
… continuously, in the action:
• Drive autonomy acceptance
• Provide feedback in the
action (intrinsic one)
• Help set actionable goals …
• … continuously balance skill
vs difficulty
• …
~20% of
managers
~70% of
managers
~10% of
managers
“Collective behaviour is …

The rule for giving good feedback (& avoid giving bad feedback)
• Give feedback on “HOW” people contributed/ realised something …
– Shows you took an effort to understand how someone else did something
– It strengthens their focus, engagement and will to even get better
• Do not give feedback on “WHAT” was achieved …
– Often not personal, but too general
– It may have been luck
– Too easy to give
– It will just pass by …
-54-

The essence of how to drive behaviour change in a group
I.e. : How do you get a large group consistently into thinking& acting?
How do you make them also get better at the things they do?
Tell them exactly what to
do along the way
Orders& feedback on
what’s not according to
order
Let them figure it out
themselves
No orders and no feedback
Help them so they can find out
themselves how to become better:
Provide a “mirror” to what they plan/ do/
think/ try
The mirror provides the INTRINSIC
feedback they need to get better
(and enjoy getting better!)
1 2 3
2 classical options, but you need the one in between
“Reversed transparency” or “Transparency 2.0”:
THEY make THEIR thinking and acting transparent
• For the top to help them get better (iso control)
• For the group: to find real motivation to get better

The difference between average and great transformations
-56-
Activate& sustain the thinking only at the top
• High intensity design effort, with a small group
• Detailed milestone plans developed for the teams
• High intensity, small audience steering meetings
Average transformations
Where the thinking happens during design & execution:
Great transformations
Activate& sustain the thinking everywhere
• Set the directions/ big goals at the top, BUT ALSO:
• Help teams so THEY find their optimum way to get from
big goal to big goal, through:
– Relevant, actionable milestones in between big goals
• Concrete problems, decisions, deliverables in front
– Optimum cooperation to achieve them
• Systemise continuous feedback on how teams progress
– So they can adjust more accurately and in real-time
(compared to what a high level steerco could do)

The key to organisational agility = cooperation
Cooperation that is …
• … sustained
– No temporary (orchestrated) enthusiasm
• … among many, across functions
– Not among only the top 2% high potentials of the organisation
• … around the things that matter
– The key programs, projects and milestones for the organisation
-57-
THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER:
Cooperation is the OPPOSITE of how we think we should manage work,
which is to …:
• … Prescribe (e.g. clear roles& rules, dedicated structures …)
• … Measure (e.g. track KPI’s, …),
• … Control (e.g. top down decision power, steering meetings, ….)
• … Reward/ punish (e.g. incentives, vertical promotions, ….)

The issue: any organisation tends to develop organisational
“complication”
-58-
• Administration/ communication complication
– Fragmented and unstructured action logs/ emails, planning platforms with selective participation
• Tendency to push difficult things to the back
– Teams tend to jump into action without full alignment or full insight in the best course of action
– Use the time buffer in projects too quickly
• Lack of real cooperation (we merely are “Working Apart Together)
– Too strict reliance on individual/ department goals
– No transparency on individual contributions in shared result
• So no recognition, let alone reward for cooperation
• Difficulty to find& sustain “continuous progress” in teams, in between key milestones or overall goals
– No “team reflex” to translate overall goals into concrete actionable goals (“milestones”) first
– Which allows continuous progress, and more motivate to continue like that and not to disengage …
1
2
3
4
When you take a real close look, these 4 tendencies often arise in (program) organisations
What we aspire: What we get:

Organisational complication arises even despite good structures,
set-up and intentions …
-59-
• A clear strategy
– With clear overall goals
• A well designed work structure
– Allocating resources in programs, taskforces, teams, …
• A good set-up
– Clearly aligned governance
– Clearly decided KPI set
– Clear project charters
• Even signed-off
• Good& comprehensive communication
– So everything is clear to everyone
Additional problem: you cannot fight the complication with re-enforcing
these items, it makes it even worse ! (micro vs macro level)
Organisational complication arises even despite these things:

A confronting logic
Situation
-60-
• “Managers don’t give enough positive feedback”
What we believe to
be the reason for
this
• They are too busy with their boss, the numbers, …
The real reason
• They really have higher expectations for the work
• And when they are not met, it’s logical for them not to give
positive feedback … (it would be fake to do so!)
The solution
• Continuously, collectively invest in
1. Cooperation to make transparent how expectation aligns with reality
2. Growing the collective performance
• Expectations tend to grow as well, and getting better is rewarding
• SO THAT expectations and reality are more closely met, more often
• SO THAT it becomes OBVIOUS to give positive feedback

When work becomes complex, it’s more crucial to manage
complication vs cooperation, rather than individual performance
-61-
Collective
performance of
the organisation
i= everyone
Individual
performances
THE COOPERATION
in getting things done
THE COMPLICATION
in getting things done
(i) The misalignments, bad coordination, …
(ii) Conflicting individual goals, KPI’s, interests …
(iii) Unclear milestones/ how progress is made/ who
contributes
(iv)Overload of administration& reporting
(v) Too strict interpretation of role& responsibilities
How you collectively (in teams)
(i) align on shared goals
(ii) take clear, shared decisions
(iii) help others increase THEIR performance
Overall growth,
profit, how you beat
competition all the
time, …

A “universal” YET “authentic” type of purpose for organisations
- linked to the “how” and not the “what“ -
-62-
To collectively maximise Flow: the enjoyment of experiencing
that you’re good at what you do, while doing it
The HOW
The WHAT
The WHY
Organise the work so the 3 conditions for Flow are met:
1.Clear goals to orient actions upon
2.Continuously match (team) skill with difficulty to make progress
3.Provide immediate, intrinsic feedback on progress made
The products/ services & strategy/ organisation/ …
• The excuse to make the above possible ;-)
A new, universal purpose, for any organisation:
Universal: because applicable to any organisation as it’s linked to the how not the what
•More difficult to find compelling& scalable purposes linked to the what (e.g. in insurance?, in IT?, …)
Authentic: when you really organise work for Flow, then people fully experience the purpose!
•In any moment, within any activity/ setting, …

People will become more autonomous& cooperate more strongly
when work is organized so that it is intrinsically motivating
You work towards
clear goals, that make
sense to you
While working, you experience that YOU make progressYou have control over
how you can make
progress twds those
goals
31 2
“Purpose” “Autonomy” “Mastery”
All actions have
a clear goal
Immediate
feedback on how you
progress
Balance skill &
difficulty to keep
progress
= Motivation “in the action”: experienced when making progress towards meaningful goals ….
People (only) go BEYOND the prescriptions, orders, roles, rules …
… and thus become more autonomous and cooperate more …
… when the 3 conditions for intrinsic motivation are met in the way we organise work:
The Pactify process (driven by a “PMO+”) aims to provide moderation and support ….
….to teams& sponsors
… during goal setting and execution
… with the aim to put the 3 conditions more and more at work in the group
Source: Edward Deci / Richard Ryan/ Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

The consequence of autonomy and cooperation
-64-
Autonomy
&
cooperation ?
• Too strict interpretation of roles& rules
• Overfocus on structures, KPIs, … instead of action
• Reluctance to solve “unforeseen” problems
• Even more rules, orders, controls, measurements, …
NO
• Stronger focus on goals than on roles/ rules/ structures
• More action and interaction, less escalation
• Continuous “flow” of work, where the capacity sits to do so
• Getting more result with less resources
YES

3 options to get maximum collective output in a transformation,
only 1 really works!
“Control from above” “Full freedom in the teams”
(at least in between big milestones)
“THEIR transparency in exchange for
your help to keep them sharp”
(continuous interactions,
as a “mirror” not a controlling entity)
You tell people what to do,
along the entire way
You assume teams find their
own optimum way of working,
without guidance
You ask them to make transparent
HOW they want to progress, and then
help so THEY find how to optimize
• with intensive “PMO+ moderation”,
without “doing/ telling” it for them
• Impossible to prescribe
everything at the top for a
large group to adopt
• Teams do not naturally find their
way to stay/ keep sharp
• They need a hand with the
investment it takes
• Macro instruments do not
stimulate this either (Structures,
KPIs, Governance, …)
• Activates the collective thinking&
acting, not only the one at the top
DOES NOT WORK! DOES NOT WORK!
OPTIMUM WAY TOWARDS
CONTINUOUS, COLLECTIVE
PERFORMANCE & ENGAGEMENT
1 2 3

How do you create more autonomy and cooperation (II/II) ?
-66-
• So they become leading
over roles, rules, KPIs,
structures, …
Do MUCH MORE of this:
PUT THESE 3 SIMPLE RULES AT WORK:
•Autonomy motivates more
than prescriptions and orders
•But: in exchange for
transparency
•Make the big steps transparent PLUS
everyone’s contributions to getting to
those steps
•Help to make progress continuous
•Learn them to ask for help when stuck
•… so they drive even more progress
- triggering more spontaneous
cooperation to be able to do so
Make the goals clear at
all times
Give more autonomy in
exchange for transparency
Make people experience that they
progress
1 2 3
Source: motivational theory (Decy/ Ryan/ Cszikcentmihaly)

To start to change “the how”, we learn teams to become more
transparent on their progress towards goals, themselves
• When people and teams THEMSELVES become more transparent on
– Their clear and specific goals
– Their real engagements (planned actions)
– Their real progress (contributions)
• … they will start to experience more strongly that they contribute and that experience will
fuel (gradually) more autonomy and, within teams, more cooperation
• We call this “group skill” : “Transparency 2.0”
-67-

It is a mirror on goals & progress, built in real-time by everyone,
creating a stronger collective experience of contributing
Transparency 2.0 =
-68-
Final
objective
Actions
• Who does what to get to the milestones ?
Milestones
• Problems solved/ to be solved
• Decisions taken/ to be taken
• Deliverables achieved/ to be achieved

Two key questions that determine the type of PMO you will get
4 shades of a business PMO
-69-
QUESTION 1 : What should the PMO focus on ?
The compliance to the approach
(The governance, reporting
requirements, roles, rules, KPIs, …)
The actual progress of teams
(The hearth of the action: problems to
solve/ decisions to take/ output to
achieve)
QUESTION 2:
What “power”
do we give the
PMO?
PMO only
suggests to
teams
Equality between
PMO& teams
(mandated by the
top)
“Could you please fill in this
template ?”
“If not, I will fill in the missing info”
“I expect the report ready on my
desk by next Friday”
“Could you consider to target
this milestone (by then) ?”
“Can YOU explain to us why
you target that milestone
and not this one (by then)?”
“The PMO+”
(Majority of current PMO’s!)
“…” : Example questions/ statements of the PMO”
The advisorThe secretary
The police

Transparency 2.0 changes everything
• More focused meetings
– You don’t need to start by figuring out where you left
– Meetings focused on decisions and actions to allow progress
• More focus on helping teams to make/ accelerate progress
– Instead of being forced to control because you lack the required transparency
• Transparency on how teams progress makes them cooperate more
– More feedback/ recognition
• Faster performance development in teams
– They experience stronger how they contribute
– They can receive more focused feedback
-70-

We provide the PMO+ function: the PMO of “the how” of getting
work done
-71-
• NOT: produce reporting for the steering committee
• Create a stronger experience inside teams that
THEY make progress
- Learn teams to develop “transparency 2.0”
• Help teams so they can find the way to maximize
their progress / Keep teams focused on progress
- What milestones need to be achieved by when?
- The problems to solve, decisions to take,
deliverables to produce
- Who needs to do what to make optimum progress
twds milestones ?
- Ensuring focus: all actions have a clear goal
- Ensuring effective cooperation
• Make the new way of working continuous
Objectives of the PMO+
• Onboard everyone on a simple platform
- Help teams so they can formulate a shared
objective
• Set-up and manage a PROCESS of progress
- Weekly (short) meetings/ screen takeover
sessions
- Right intensity of interactions on progress and
action (right intensity = right experience of action)
- “You explain us” idea
• Moderate interactions between “top” & group
- Prepare the group for optimum interaction
- Involve the top in “reading” along and coming up
with ways to help progress
Approach to get there
• Continuously “feed” the network of progress
with new problems, goals

Changing the way of working requires a PMO+ process
(supported by a platform)
The experience
that YOU make
progress as a
team
Start-up & manage a process of Transparency 2.0
• Intensive help from PMO+ to teams
• Moderate interaction between teams& sponsors
Continuous signal from the sponsors:
• “We expect Transparency 2.0”
Initial
resistance
Teams more focused
& goal oriented
Everyone works in a network of
progress, updated in real time
More real autonomy& cooperation
in problem solving/ execution
Extra problems to solve/ goals to achieve
Flexible distribution of autonomy
Focus of the PMO+ process … to create a stronger experience of action
Way of working
irreversibly changed
Way of working
risks falling back
All interactions sponsors vs. group accordingly:
• Reading/ helping, steering, giving feedback…

The “experience of progress” gets you on top of the hill of change
(a hill in reality, a mountain in perception)
-73-
The experience that
YOU make progress
as a team
• Transparency on goals& HOW progress is
made, real-time, by everyone (commanded!)
• Intensive, continuous moderation process
• Feels “forced”, can still fall back any time
• Strong experience of autonomous team progress
• Enjoyable, so we want this to continue
• So it becomes sustainable, as we continue to
present new problems to solve/ goals to achieve
The complexity of the
change
The speed of
climbing

The important difference between a PMO and a PMO+
A “classical” PMO
• Focus on having qualitative information flow
between teams and decision makers
– Jumps in for the teams if they don’t produce
information
A PMO+
• Focus on getting teams into action
– By making THEM take the pen (PMO+ does not write)
– By having them focused on goals and progress
• Questions/ challenges how the teams look at making
progress
– Identifies where help is needed and where it can be
found
– Helps the team to generate “intrinsic” feedback on how
they progress, based on the reality of how they interact
• In the end, merely a secretary to the teams/ the
sponsors
• “Stands in the way” of a clear picture of how
teams actually (want to) make progress
– Risk to present only a “perception” of
progress to the decision makers
• The one who presents the mirror to teams on how they
made progress and think about making further progress
• Drives the adoption of a collective behavior of
transparency on progress and goals
– Ensuring high enough “intensity” of touchpoints so
behavior actual changes
– In the action (refining the actual “mirror” on progress)
• Not by re-iterating theory or rules, steps, …

Facing change or organizational problems? Two ways to find
solutions … only the second really effective
The toolkit of passive approaches
• Add a new box to the organigram
• Add a new process, with new systems, KPIs,
dashboard, …
• Add a new role, policy, rule, reporting standard, …
• Do a new assessment/ study
• Launch a new training program
The toolkit of active approaches
A continuous process to change the collective habit in …
• … making goals clear and transparent
– At the start, goals = “the problems to solve” typically
• … making contributions (actions) to progress transparent
– So people “experience” progress, which motivates
• … helping teams to make continuous progress
• These “solutions” don’t trigger action directly
• They increase complicatedness in an organisation
• Lead to discussions/ polarization/ excuses/
opinions/ … which delay action even more
• Due to lack of action& progress: no “experience” of
progress, so even less action/ drive …
• Simplifies an organization through focus on the essence:
solving problems/ achieving milestones
• Allows to gradually find the drive …
– … to recover from stalemate situations internally
– … to continuously grow the muscle to deliver
• Essentially: going around the problem/ opportunity
to change something elsewhere and come back
later (INDIRECT)
Essentially: solving the problem/ taking the opportunity
WHERE IT occurs, IN the action, through more cooperation

3 different types of happiness @work …
with very different ways of achieving each
-76-
Source: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Examples in business
context
Job security, nice colleagues,
lowered pressure, …
Driving progress and getting
spontaneous cooperation in a
challenging business mission
Comfort/ pleasure
Safety, health, fun,
recognition, …
Engagement
(“FLOW”)
Immersing in a
challenging activity
with a clear goal
Meaning/
purpose
Feeling connected to
something bigger you
believe in
Feeling connected with your
company’s mission, vision,
values …
1
2
3
Finding& sharing an authentic
purpose for the organisation
Conditions to make it
happen @work
Nice work environment,
gentle conduct, positive mgt
styles, …
Clear goals. Goal focused
action, immediate feedback
in the action, balance skill/
difficulty
HAPPINESS OUTSIDE THE ACTION
HAPPINESS IN THE ACTION
Which one do you want and why ? How do you start ?

Feedback is important, but there is a crucial difference between
external vs. internal feedback
“External feedback”
• Comes from the outside/ from around the
activity you are performing
• Example:
– A compliment from your boss when sales
results come in and they are better than
expected
– A “thank you email” from the boss to
everyone, for having worked so hard
“Internal (intrinsic) feedback”
• Directly linked to the activity itself/ produced from within
• Related to the actual progress made in the activity
• Example:
– A compliment from your boss on how elegantly you
actually solved a problem
– The thick fat line going through a TO DO on your list
(after you completed it)
• Perception based / not always factual
• Not linked to the concrete activity (you may
have been lucky ;-))
• Objective validation of progress in the activity
• Can be “systemized”, to have more (almost continuously)
– Also not needing constant external involvement
• Doesn’t help to improve performance in teams
– Can even distract/ frustrate
• The real basis for improving performance in teams

Some differences
-78-
Classical management consulting
• Too few people think &develop solutions …
• … in a too short period of time …
• … assuming a very large group will then enter
into action to execute
• This cycle repeates, faster and faster
Pactify moderation model
• Lots of people start thinking and action at the same time
• Taking their time to develop aligned solutions
• Being much closer to action through this
• Sustaining this as a collective habit
• Sequential thinking and action, separated in
time and participants
• Leveraged thinking and doing IN THE ACTION

The difference with classical transparency (the one you have now)
Transparency 1.0
• The boss doesn’t know what is exactly going on
Transparency 2.0
• The boss reads in real-time what is going on
• He walks in (or holds a steerco) & asks for a
status
‒ Difficult/ team is not really prepared
‒ No real flow in the dialogue
‒ Same problem next meeting, “where were
we last time?”
• He can add to the progress at any moment (help/ steer)
with more material to work with
– Material you provide anyway while planning/ doing
inside your team
• As a result, the boss will probably take control
and prescribe how things should be done
• YOU as team, have the opportunity to be one step
ahead of the boss, so:
– The boss does not always need to prescribe/ control
– YOU experience progress more strongly
– The dialogue is more focused on helping progress
• Will come to a general status, without insight on
everyone’s contributions
– What everyone really does and how they
cooperate remains intransparent
– Not used to give feedback upon to try to
make you better
• Your contributions are transparent
– More noticed around you, so more feedback
– Vital to keep cooperation going inside the team
– More stimulating to continue your drive

ACTUAL performance spread to manage!
Not by competence assessments but by
organising work for autonomy& cooperation!
There is NO SUCH THING as “your competence”
Your competence “ON PAPER”
• When assessed “off-line”, when you are
not in action
– E.g.: perception from a job interview,
competence assessments, …
Your competence “IN ACTION”
• How your competence plays out in the real action
– In a real team, with a real context
– With that team and context impacting:
• your motivation to embrace autonomy (i.e. show more)
• and their motivation to cooperate (i.e. help you get better)
“Your competence” Your competence …
… in a team that cooperates
… when you embrace autonomy
… when you hide away from autonomy
… in a team that does not cooperate

Organisations start working better when they SHIFT focus …
-81-
Only checking the “WHAT”
Away from: … towards:
Developing an interest in the “HOW”
• Structuring& prescribing who needs to deliver
what
• Checking compliance to the rules& roles
• Checking high level deliverables
• Measuring KPI’s
• …
• Understanding HOW teams optimally
progress
• Having them make this transparent in a way
everyone develops an interest
• Organise interactions focused on HELPING
teams in HOW to progress
• Giving feedback on HOW they did something
(not only on what was achieved)
• …

The real problem with classical management instruments
-82-
The classical instruments …
• Structuring work in departments/ divisions
• Making individual accountabilities clear / making rules for who can decide what
• Measuring high level KPIs
• Reporting and coordinating how everyone’s progress can come together
• Adding more people, functions, …
• Coaching& training individuals and individual skills
• ….
… CAN NOT lead to the optimum collective performance,
…but only to a combination of sub-optimal, individual/ departmental performances
And the REAL problem with this is:
The difference between both is the productivity gain you dearly NEED these days !

Transparency 2.0 allows to gradually move from extrinsic
motivation to intrinsic motivation in teams
First focus Second focus Third focus
The key steps the
teams should take
(the milestones)
FOCUS when teams
are motivated from
the “outside”
The detailed
forecast of impact
The final outcome that
should be reached
FOCUS when teams
are motivate “from
the inside”
How to make good, continuous progress
• The logic of milestones& actions to make
progress
‒The real problems, decisions, deliverables
• The autonomy& cooperation to get it done
• Planning& progress validation by the team,
on the spot
Their shared objective
• Written by them, not for them
• Ideally having been part of
the solution that led to the
objective
Target
impact
Final
objectiveTODAY
Milestones Actions

If you want to create a performance culture or increase
performance, you can chose 2 ways
-84-
Outside of the real
action
Inside the real
action
• Give trainings
• Organise coaching sessions
• Give feedback “from a distance” : “That’s (not) looking good”
• Prescribe how high performance looks like
• Convince that high performance is needed
• Create a different experience for the group WHILE they execute:
– More transparency of HOW they make progress
– More real-time feedback on progress
– Not doing it for you, not telling it to you but helping you based on your initiative

3 simple truths on COOPERATION
-85-
FACT
PROBLEM
SOLUTION
With cooperation we get more things done, with less resources
• Massive PRODUCTIVITY gain
• Can be applied very broadly: any execution or problem solving track
Nobody wants to take the first step, why on earth would you ?
• You are not recognised nor rewarded for it
• So you keep focussing only on your individual duties and your responsibilities
Organise work along SHARED goals or problems to solve
• Not along individual/ departmental responsibilities
Make transparent how everyone contributes to shared goals/ problems
• So they enjoy the “experience” of contributing to something bigger
Reward the contributions/ the helping out on share goals/ problems
• So people see the interest of coming out of inclusion

-86-
Old reality: “What gets measured, gets done”
New reality:
“What gets measured, gets done”
known
&
“What is known does not necessarily gets done”
(it’s a little bit more complicated than that these days)

The surprising math behind more autonomy & cooperation
c
Or: how 3 + 2 can become 11
-87-
What I
show
What I
could show
The extra I
could show
100
103
3
The extra I could add
to anyone else’s
performance on my
team
2
Combined extra
output of the total
organisation(*)
11
111
Impact of more
autonomy
Impact of more
cooperation
Combined
impact
(*) Assuming on average 5 members per team
Output
Done with the
same:
• people,
• investments,
• and goals !

A different philosophy on organising work
-88-
An approach that focuses on making
teams experience that they make progress
autonomously towards meaningful
goals …
More AUTONOMY accepted More COOPERATION
So there is more
intrinsic motivation in
the team
More things achieved, more effectively, with less
resources and more satisfaction
Because: helping to increase the
others’ performance continues
the autonomous progress twds
where you want to get to
Because: autonomy helps you to
continue to make progress
autonomously (& enjoy the
motivation from it)
Prescribe, measure,
control, reward/ punish …
the work in teams
Move the needle slowly but deliberately

Our 2 assumptions for the limited autonomy and cooperation
• The “classical” way of “getting work done” :
… does not stimulate autonomy acceptance and cooperation in itself …
… especially when challenges become complex, it even creates “complication” instead
• Work will “stick and flow” (not get escalated) when it is intrinsically motivating
– … so people not only get autonomy, the also accept it, the whole way, not only at the start
– … so when the 3 conditions for intrinsic motivation are present for those who contribute:
-89-
Prescribe, Measure, Control, Reward
… have clear goals, that make sense
… have control over how to progress (the whole way, not only at the start)
• Autonomy& cooperation beyond what is prescribed
1
… have the experience that they make progress (together)
2
3
1
2

The type of transparency you demand determines a lot from there on
-90-
• Completed items
• Issues to decide
• The big next items
• Impact forecast
• Consolidate info
• “Fill the holes” of info
• Push people to provide
info
Type of transparency
Typical reports prepared for
a steerco
• 1 logical chain of progress
‒The goals& how to get there
• In 1 place
• Updated in real-time
• From the pen of everyone
Continuous transparency
2.0
Role of PMO
• Tendency to not expose
everything directly
• No real experience that
THEY drove the progress
• Push themselves to
produce reports
Behavior of teams
• No insight in real
activity
• Stop& go discussions
• Feedback only “from a
distance”:
Behavior of Steerco
Reporting what the outside
asks& can process
“Transparency 1.0”
The inside story on how
progress is made
“Transparency 2.0”
• Help teams to take the
pen and write a clear story
of goals and progress
• Stand “in-between”
‒ Give room to teams
‒ Distribute autonomy
‒ Signal where to control
• “See” how people really
make progress
• Flow between meetings
• Help them to improve
how they progress
• Know better where to
control more
• Stronger experience they
drove the progress
• More intrinsic drive to
continue to show
progress
• The autonomy “sticks”
• Transparency for the sake
of making progress, not
the sake of reporting

Distributed leadership: when will it REALLY STICK
and change the way of working for good?
When work is not only prescribed, measured, rewarded – but also intrinsically motivating
– So people like their extra autonomy, enjoy the cooperation and don’t WANT to give it back
-91-
(Team) work is intrinsically motivating when
1. The team goal is meaningful to everyone who contributes
2. You have autonomy to progress twds goals
3. You experience progress twds goals
You can (systematically) make work intrinsically motivating by
1. Make all organisational goals clear, meaningful, shared and connected
2. Focus the collective attention on “how every team can maximise their progress”
• Make progress “transparent 2.0”: from the pen of everyone, in real-time and clear/ interesting
• Install a “PMO+” inside to help teams find their optimum route of progress
• Make everyone’s contribution to anyone’s progress (i.e. the cooperation) transparent and
even incentivize it !
How ?
How ?

Any share of work can be organised for “transparency 2.0”.
With a focus on goals and how to let the group make progress
-92-
Managed as-is
• Current way of working
?
All the work there is to do …

3
A work environment that is open,
positive& safe/ good colleagues/ …
3
What sources of motivation could make the work “stick and flow” ?
(Extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation)
-93-
From the outside
of people/ teams
From inside of
people/ teams
4 Goal & actions
• I.e.: the work itself …
4
Carrot or stick1
1
A belief you’re part of something
higher the organisation strives for
(“Let’s make the world look better”)
2
2

When is the work itself motivation? When is there NO need for carrot&stick?
When those who execute have …
Work “sticks& flows” when organised so that it creates “intrinsic
motivation” that makes people accept autonomy& cooperate
-94-
Typical top
down
reality
• The top is setting all the
goals/ targets
• Autonomy levels are fixed,
depend on the level& always
decrease from top to bottom
• Often not enough transparency
to get sufficient feedback on
progress
Problem is that in a hierarchy/ top down approach, these 3 rules hardly get a chance:
Source: Edward Deci / Richard Ryan
… set goals they believe in
(meaningful ones)
… a strong experience that
they’re good at something
(or getting better at it)
… control over actions&
decisions that are needed to
deliver (but when ready for it)
31 2 “Purpose”“Autonomy” “Mastery”

A “milestone” in classical vs. agile vs. Pactify project management
- a comparison between PM methodologies -
Function/
task
focused
Classical
project mgt
Agile
project mgt
Pactify
project mgt
Task
focused
Goal/
progress
focused
Performed
by one
specific
function
Through
cross-
functional
cooperation
Scope
covers only
the project
at hand
Scope
covers only
the project
at hand
Covering
any item
required for
making
progress
Through
cross-
functional
cooperation
Example milestones Characteristics of milestones
Design
finished
Marketing work
pack finished
Sprint 3
finished
Sprint 6
finished
Blocking problem
XYZ solved
1 customer found
who signs the deal
A project milestone
Stronger trigger for cooperation towards
the relevant, broad enough, shared goals

Transparency 2.0 allows to approach each other from both sides
making it really possible to change way of working
-96-
Transparency 2.0
Those who
execute
• Invest in transparency to help everyone become
better
• Have more comfort to give autonomy/ control
less
• Sustainable because it allows to “keep” the work
down (not entering in the bottleneck)
• More comfort that what you show/ do
‒ will not (& cannot !) be ignored
‒ will be used to help you get better, not to control
• Sustainable because of growing confidence you
get from contributing in full transparency
The “top”

A command/ solution/ target pushed down from the top
The “problem” (with top down approaches) we’re addressing
-97-
The work doesn’t “stick and flow” where the capacity lies to do it …
… leading to too few people at the top doing too much& too much people below not progressing enough …
… making the organisation slow (no optimal collective productivity) and people less satisfied …
… eventually, mostly, … gets pushed back up through
escalations, …
… because there’s not enough …
• individual autonomy given or accepted to drive the work
• team cooperation (across structures) to drive the work
Can we organise work so that is “sticks and flows” where the capacity is to do so?
OR: how should you organise work so it creates more autonomy& cooperation?

The problem with almost every top down approach … eventually
-98-
… eventually, almost always, results in:
• Too few people at the top doing too much
• Too many people below not progressing
1. Collectively not productive enough
2. Collectively dis-engaging
How can you make the work “stick&
flow” where the actual capacity sits to do
so ?
I.e. how do you trigger autonomy&
cooperation so progress is made faster?
• Without escalating too often which only
increases the bottleneck at the top
?
Any top down way of organising work …

Some key differences in the types of decision making
-99-
“No objection based decision
making”
• … the interest of the company as whole
‒ As a decision is only not taken if it negatively affects the company
‒ Regardless of the individual interests of everyone involved
“A top down decision” • … the interest of the decision taker
“A compromise” • … as many interests of as many people
The ultimate/ final decision will optimise ….
Decision making based on person’s interests
Decision making based on company interests

Our framework to link “the what” and “the how” of working
-100-
“WHAT”
needs to be done ?
“HOW”
do we get it done ?
Execute strategy,
achieve deliverables,
produce reporting &
forecast, implement
mitigation measures,…
Organisation
structure
Management
(inside the structure)
Exhaustively
prescribing how
work should be
done
Simple, open, goal
focused
Focus on
controlling
goals& progress
Focus on
enabling the
group to learn
Extrinsic
(do things because there is
a carrot& stick behind)
Intrinsic
(do things because
you like doing
them)
Organisation structure& management
to “touch” people to try to move them
Resulting motivation
Resulting behavior
Following the
commands, focus on
direct, clearly stated
priorities/ tasks. Little/ no
cooperation beyond what’s expected.
New, different things are “too much”
More autonomy& cooperation
(goal& progress more
leading than
structures) ,less
escalationThe actual results

Exhaustively
prescribing how
work should be
done
Structure& management
style can contradict each
other, producing less strong
motivation
Some typical misconceptions about the “how” of organising
“WHAT”
needs to be done ?
“HOW”
do we get it done ?
Execute strategy,
achieve deliverables,
produce reporting &
forecast, implement
mitigation measures,…
Organisation
structure
Management
(inside the structure)
Simple, open, goal
focused
Focus on
control
Focus on
letting the
group do it
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
Organisation structure& management Resulting motivation
Resulting behavior
Following the
commands, little
cooperation beyond
what is prescribed, all “new, other”
things are too much
More autonomy&
cooperation
Focusing only/ too much
on the “what” will not drive
the results up
Structure impacts
motivation as well (more
frequent touchpoints than
with mgt)
Structure& management
do NOT impact behavior
directly, but merely a
certain motivation to act
1
2
3
4
You cannot expect/ claim creativity &
self-drive if you didn’t structure and
manage for it !
5
The actual results

Today’s market requirements make autonomy& cooperation
even more important
Global
consistency
-102-
Local
responsiveness
Speed Reliability
Innovation Efficiency
Source: Yves Morieux, BCG
Sell online Sell offline
&
&
&
&
… …&
New, more complex market
requirements to satisfy in order to
create value
Solving this …
… has NOTHING to do
with strategy
(you know this
already) …
… but EVERYTHING
with how you
organise work …
What’s the best source for autonomy
and cooperation to bet on?
Carrot or stick1
A belief you’re part of something
higher the organisation strives
for
2
A work environment that is open,
positive& safe/ good colleagues/
…
3
4 Goal & actions

When do these sources really do with people?
-103-
4 Goal & actions
• Engage them
Carrot or stick1 • Control / push them
A belief you’re part of something higher the
organisation strives for
2 • Inspire them
A work environment that is open, positive&
safe/ good colleagues/ …
3 • Comfort them

When do these sources work optimally ?
-104-
4 Goal & actions
• When work is organised in
a way that those who
execute:
‒ Find the goals meaningful
‒ Get freedom to control
actions
‒ Feel that they are good at it
• When work is organised top down:
‒ You have to do it
‒ They tell you how
‒ You get little/ no feedback on how
you’re doing
Works great … Does not work …
Carrot or stick1 • For standard work • For complex work
• When you want to continuously tailor
for the tasks at hand
• When something hits you& you have
to act
A belief you’re part of
something higher the
organisation strives for
2 • When you have an
authentic, scalable belief
• When there is no such belief
to act
A work environment that
is open, positive& safe/
good colleagues/ …
3 • When authentic • When the open environment is
“fake”/ “forced”
to act

Any organisation model impacts 2 things in a group: the
motivation to act productively and their satisfaction/ happiness
-105-
The organisation
• Structures, roles,
KPIs, incentives, beliefs …
The group
… the motivation to act
productively …
… to do what they
would not
spontaneously do
In only 2 possible ways!
• Extrinsic: carrot& stick
• Intrinsic: purpose, autonomy& mastery
I.e. effectively solve
problems/ set goals
and execute
… level of happiness/
satisfaction
1
2
Key question: what model optimizes both at the same time ?
From unhappy to
neutral, positively
comforting, … fully
engaged …

Finding flow at work – what is it ?
• It is having the creativity, focus, alertness to turn your task (the same one your colleague
has to do as well) … (continuously) into something more challenging to do
– … so it always stays just difficult enough to perform …
– … so that it’s that difficulty that makes you enjoy the task
• … as opposed to letting the task tire you out ….
• … in other words: the task itself that is telling you how good you are in it (immediate
feedback in the action)
– … and that’s giving you energy (instead of it consuming your energy)
• This is an alternative to: trying to change the task, run away from it, complain while doing
it ….
-106-
VIDEO

Same task, with
more self-
confidence
Four concrete ways to get teams into Flow
-107-
Perceived skill you have for executing the action
Perceived
difficulty of the
action
Actions
Raise challenge : deliver faster /
broaden scope
Ask for help in
the team
self-drive& real cooperation
– full focus on what you are doing
Take smaller
steps first
+ immediate feedback on every step forward, in the action …
1
2
3
4 3’

What organisational model brings the optimum balance
between productivity & happiness (at work)?
-108-
The levels
of
HAPPINESS
/
satisfaction
(*)
Comfort/
pleasure
Meaning
Engagement
(“Flow”)
The types of motivation to act PRODUCTIVELY (**)
Extrinsic motivation
(Carrot & Stick)
Classical
top down
model
Tends to
lead
to (high) %
of dis-
engagement The organisation
as a transparent
network of goals& actions
(Self-built, moderated for “Flow” – “Pactify”)
Self-steering/
Wholeness
(F.Laloux)
Evolutionary
purpose
(F.Laloux)
Correlationtohappiness
Correlation to productivity(it depends here …)
(*) Source: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (**) Source: Edward Deci / Richard Ryan
&
Un-
happiness
~20-30%
of people
~15% of
people
Neutral
1
2
Control over
actions
“Autonomy”
Feeling that
you’re good at it
“Mastery”
Goals you
believe in
“Purpose”

The conditions to deploy each model differ …
-109-
(*) Source: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (**) Source: Edward Deci / Richard Ryan
Organise the
work so that:
1. All actions have a goal
2. There’s immediate feedback in the action
3. And balance between difficulty&skill for all actions
Create a place
that “opens up”
people
(collectively)
Find an
authentic,
scalable belief
for the org
Correlation to productivity(it depends here …)
&
The types of motivation to act PRODUCTIVELY (**)
“Top down”:
organisation triggers
extrinsic motivation
(Carrot & Stick)
The levels
of
HAPPINESS
/
satisfaction
(*)
Comfort/
pleasure
Meaning
Engagement
(“Flow”)
Un-
happiness
Neutral
1
2
Control over
actions
“Autonomy”
Feeling that
you’re good at it
“Mastery”
Goals you
believe in
“Purpose”

People don’t immediately get to action when
solutions/ targets are pushed down
No incentive/ use to cooperate across silo’s
Difficult to get into “flow” of “continuous action/
progress” (due to lack of feedback, stop and go,
internal complicatedness …)
• When there is no flow of action, it gets replaced by
dynamics “in the periphery” (outside the action, away
from the essence): excuses, distractions, loss of focus
Progress slows down when all decisions
are taken at the top (bottleneck)
The reasons why any hierarchy/ top down approach leads to
suboptimal collective productivity
-110-
1
2
4
3
2
This holds true for any top down organisation: be it to run the “business as usual” or the
organisation you put in place for “transformation”
Question: How to counter these 4 intrinsic tendencies that hamper collective productivity ?

We focus on “the how” to the same extent as on “the what”
-111-
How?
What?
Why?
• The vision / strategy
• The problems and solutions
• The deliverables
• The analyses, forecasts, reports
More from …
• Hierarchy/ governance based on top
down control
• Deliverable based KPIs
• Steering committees/ structures
• Cooperation and autonomy/
governance based on evolving
autonomy in function of progress
• Behavior based KPIs
• Evolving network
… to

The problem with a hierarchy or any top down approach is that …
… despite all the efforts/ investments in:
• management/ leadership, communication, support, efforts to develop idea’s, vision, strategy ...
… eventually … almost always …
… too few people at the top do too much and too many people below don’t do enough …
… leading to suboptimal group productivity and low engagement …
-112-

This is not an HR approach, it is looking at it in a broader
perspective
-113-
Individual
‒ Talent
‒ Skills
‒ Competencies
What type of drive
behind?
Extrinsic
‒ Carrot& stick
Intrinsi
Put into what kind of
cooperation?
None/ Working
Apart Together
Real cooperation
The HR look on
things
This is managed by the way of organising work, not the HR approach you have

You want self-steering?
You’ll need to find the right alternative for “control from above”
-114-
Source: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
How to organise work to
achieve this ?What are the key drivers of behavior (extrinsic vs intrinsic)?
Examples in
business context
Job security, nice
colleagues, lowered
pressure, …
Drive a challenging
new project, …
Comfort
(“Wholeness”)
Driven by the safety,
recognition, social
connections, pleasure,
…
Engagement
(“Flow”)
Immersion IN a
challenge/ activity
(solo/in team)/ focused
execution/ positive
feeling that activity
expresses your skill
Meaning
(“Purpose”)
Driven by something
you believe in
Proud about your
employer, the value
you bring to clients,
…
Traditional top down
approaches
(structures, roles,
incentives,…)
“Not driven” (unhappy)
“Driven”
Driven by intrinsic
motivation
“Uncontrolled”
“Control from above”
(driven by “the outside”, the carrot/ stick)
Having to do what you
are told to do or
incentivized to do
Allow freedom on the work
floor, openness, climate to
be yourself, reduced
pressure, …
1. Clear goals for all actions
2. Immediate feedback on
progress
3. Actions always slightly more
difficult than skill
• In full transparency, and
eventually gamified
The top defines (and
conveys) an authentic
common purpose in the
organisation
Put in place: structures,
procedures, KPIs,
incentives, …
1
2
3

All goods things in life from from a “balance at stretch”
-115-
PolarizingA “balance at stretch”Compromising
• Staying in your comfort
zone
• Trying those things
slightly more difficult
than your ability
• Doing what you are
ordered
• Leaving each other
alone
• Helping / getting help • A few do too much, and
a lot of people don’t do
enough
Refusing (more)
autonomy
Accepting the right kind
of (extra) autonomy
Not getting any (extra)
autonomy
No cooperation Real cooperation “Working Apart
Together”
Regarding
autonomy
Regarding
cooperation

Pactify - one pagers slide deck

Pactify - one pagers slide deck

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (18)

Similar a Pactify - one pagers slide deck

Similar a Pactify - one pagers slide deck (20)

Más de Bart Vanderhaegen

Más de Bart Vanderhaegen (9)

Último

Último (20)

Pactify - one pagers slide deck