• Log in
• Sitemap
• Privacy statement

• Contact

• Introduction
• Achieving congruence
• Applications
• Markets
• Business Cases
• FAQ
• Contact

Management Drives is convinced that managers need to achieve congruence for sustainable performance. This relates to the congruence between:

1. the task or role assigned to you (as a team, department or organization) (the WHAT),
2. the best manner in which you can fulfill this (the HOW), and
3. the team’s drive (the WHO)

The majority of the organizational and management-science approaches make a link between the WHAT and the HOW. Once you have specified the tasks assigned to your organization or department the experts then determine the best method for the completion of those tasks. However, Management Drives perceives this approach as far from optimum, since the people who are to carry out those processes also exert a major influence. Their drives largely determine the effectiveness of the chosen design. In practice we encounter a number of different situations:

• Examples of great congruence between who, what and how, such as in the example of the arrest squad of a major city explained in detail below;
• Examples of teams in which a great deal of attention still needs to be given to the necessary congruence, but which nevertheless possess excellent prospects;
• Examples of teams with an incongruence such that measures are required, such as the example of an operating theater given below.

We encountered one of the best examples of congruence between the who, what and how in the arrest squad of a major city. The team’s group profile is shown in Figure 2.

The sequence exhibited by this group is primarily Blue, followed by Orange and Yellow; there is little Green, and Red achieves a very low score. This reveals a team which carries out its work on the basis of very rational protocols, does everything with each other in accordance with hard agreements (Blue), carries out its duties in an efficient manner (Orange), and then makes a searching evaluation (Yellow) that also devotes attention to emotions. Rules and agreements governing these evaluations lay down explicit instructions as to how the members criticize each other; this is necessary since the low Red indicates that members of a team of this nature are not accustomed to receiving criticism. However, the low Red is extremely functional with respect to the performance of the team’s task, since impulsive or power-oriented actions are absolutely impermissible when tracking down, following and arresting suspects who are armed and dangerous.

An operating theater team has the group profile shown in Figure 3 (i.e. the WHO):

This group is primarily driven by complexity, new theories, really wishing to understand issues, and a desire to continually tackle new things. However, the profile includes virtually no Blue or Red – i.e. the drive to finish things neatly, work in accordance with standards, and reach decisions.

Although the actions (at activity level) carried out by an operating theater team are complex (very precise incisions are required) the team is also governed by a large number of stringent protocols. Fixed and professional standards governing the performance of operations are applicable to all those involved. The tasks, duties and actions are laid down in explicit procedures. Consequently this team lacks congruence between the WHO and the WHAT, and it is reasonable to presume that they will never carry out a task in the appropriate manner (since they approach their tasks in an inventive manner instead of complying with the prevailing procedures). Making changes to its tasks would not appear to be a logical approach for an operating theater team. Although the team is required to conform with the standards, this group has a natural tendency to adopt a critical and creative approach to its duties – and is any patient going to like that?

The drives of another operating theater team shown in Figure 4 would appear to be more suited to the task:

This team does its work in accordance with the rules, and when unforeseen situations arise reviews whether rules have already been drawn up for those situations. The WHAT and the WHO would appear to be in agreement. In this case the HOW needs to be subjected to an additional review. Are the procedures specified in a sufficiently Blue manner? Have suitable arrangements been made for the version management? Have all risks been covered adequately? Have sufficient times been specified for evaluations – both of the actual work and the emotions (what if something goes wrong whilst the work was carried out in accordance with the procedures)? Etc., etc.