Chapter One
What You Can Get HIPSYS to Do for You
An Introduction to the HIPSYS Program and Methodologies
Successful consultants, internal and external, tailor their consulting approaches for continuous improvement to the needs of their clients. The very process of doing this in consultation with the client gives the client ownership of the approach. Their subsequent involvement gives them ownership of the outcomes and the commitment and enthusiasm to follow through on their own action plans.
Then, when they make "Before and After" comparisons, it invariably enhances the consultant’s credibility and leads to repeat business. Well-earned fees to the consultant, value to the client, and an ongoing relationship - Win/Win.
How can a consultant make this happen - consistently? With a program and methodologies that are flexible and can be customised to meet a variety of needs in a variety of industries and organizations. Methodologies that can help individuals, teams and organizations to continuously improve and provide a means of monitoring and measuring such improvement.
This is what HIPSYS can help to achieve in the hands of a skilled consultant. It will not make you a good consultant, but, if you are a good consultant, you will find it is a powerful and valuable tool.
What is a good consultant? A good consultant is one who never has to look for new clients. The clients find him/her. One of the founders of a large consulting company (and a former boss of mine) used to say, "The best way to sell consulting is to do good consulting." I found that he was right. The word gets around and when clients move on to other organisations, they often take that consultant with them.
Like any tool, however, HIPSYS will not do your job for you, but it can help you to do a better job. The HIPSYS program and associated methodologies can be used to:
Phew! Sounds a bit much? Just pick one of those to start with and see how it goes. Once you get the hang of it, you’ll probably develop some new classes of your own. Good consultants do.
Briefly, HIPSYS enables the consultant and the client to visually compare a number of related variables. There are several different display modes but the three most popular are ‘Circles’, ‘Histogram’ and ‘Assist’ displays. We’ll explain the Circles displays first.
In the example shown in Figure 1.1 three aggregate (or Parent) response groups (or image perspectives) are represented as follows: -
MANAGEMENT : Red Circle
SUPERVISORS : Yellow Circle
WORKFORCE : Blue Circle
Figure 1.1
Circles Display of Parent Response Groups called
MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISORS and WORKFORCE
The extent to which these circles overlap is indicative of how much the three Parent response groups are saying the same thing. The more they pull apart, the more they are saying different things.
There are only three responses available to each question (or statement); respondents can "Agree" with a statement, "Disagree" or "Neither Agree nor Disagree". "Agree" is usually a positive and "Disagree" is usually a negative, except where statements are negative (shown by 'N' in the ‘Assist’ display and in the ‘Print Special’ coloured printout – see Chapters Three and Eleven). In such cases "Agree" yields a negative and "Disagree" a positive.
Overall responses are shown by pluses and minuses. Overall positive responses are shown by pluses (+) and overall negative ones by minuses (-).
Polarised responses, shown by zeros (0), are where at least 30% of respondents agree with a statement and at least 30% disagree with the same statement and the difference between them is less than 25%. (You can change these percentages if you like. See Chapter Six.)
"Neither Agree nor Disagree" responses mean the statement is not applicable or the respondent is saying "Don’t Know". Overall "Neither" responses shrink the size of a Circle and show no symbol.
Symbols in the Circles in the Summary show the overall decisive responses to the total number of statements as illustrated in Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2
Example of a Circles Display with Symbols
In this case, the Parent response groups and their component response groups are structured as shown in Table 1.1
Table1.1
Parent Response Groups and Their Component Response Groups
|
Parent Response Group (or Image Perspective) |
Component Response Groups |
|
MANAGEMENT |
|
|
SUPERVISORS |
|
|
WORKFORCE |
|
Histogram displays can show the overall responses of PARENT response groups (in upper case letters) together with any component groups (in lower case letters), if selected (see Chapter Five), as shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3
Histogram Display showing PARENT Response Groups
together with Their Component Groups
‘Assist’ displays show the questions (actually statements rather than questions if you want to be precise) together with the breakdown of responses by numbers and percentages, as shown in Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4
Assist Display Showing Responses to Two Questions (Nos. 7 and 105)
These displays enable response group results to be displayed as follows:
This can be done for individuals, for teams, and for organizations. We’ll look at each of these in turn but let’s take an individual application first and have a look at how the data can be displayed.
Examples of HIPSYS Applied to Individuals
Jill’s Case: A negative outcome from the consultant’s perspective but a positive one from the client’s
Jill was an industrial chemist who worked in the laboratory of a metalliferous mine. Four operators from the processing plant brought her samples of ore for her to assay. She gave the results of her assays to her internal customers in the processing plant (the manager, a senior engineer and two senior metallurgists) so they could blend and process the ore to produce the concentrates which met the specifications of the mine’s external customers.
She was supervised by the Laboratory Manager and worked with six other chemists and technical assistants. She was regarded as a good worker but with an attitude problem that was adversely affecting the team. To reinforce Jill’s strengths and explore areas for her personal and professional development, a new HIPSYS class was tailored which would compare what she thinks of herself with what her boss, peers, operators and internal customers think.
So, the three Parent response groups (Circles - sometimes called "Image Perspectives" – see Chapter Seven) were Self, Colleagues and Processing Plant comprising component response groups as follows:
Table 1.2
Response Groups and Component Groups
|
Parent Response Group |
Component Groups |
|
SELF |
N/A |
|
COLLEAGUES |
|
|
PROCESSING PLANT |
|
The consultant then decided, in consultation with the client, what facets to explore with regard to Jill and the others in the Laboratory (her boss and six peers, so she would not feel she was being singled out). It was decided that all would benefit from looking at the facets shown in Table 1.3:
Table 1.3
Facets
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
The consultant then developed questions, again, in consultation with the client, which would draw out these facets. Normally there are about ten questions per facet and they are distributed randomly throughout the questionnaire. Many sample questionnaires from existing HIPSYS classes are available and all that was necessary was for the consultant and client to pick from those and adapt them to suit the particular culture and requirements.
Figure 1.5
Circles Display of Jill’s HIPSYS Profile Summary with Symbols
Figure 1.6
Histogram Display of Jill’s HISYS Summary Showing Parent Group Responses Only
Responses are also grouped and separated out by facet, eg, Attitudes, Teamwork, et cetera. (See Table 1.3.) The facets were displayed one at a time on a computer and the results discussed with Jill. Here is what the facet on her Attitudes (a touchy issue - usually never measured) looks like:
Figure1.7
Circles Display of Attitude Facet
Figure 1.8
Histogram Display of Attitude Facet
The degree of overlap between the circles indicates that how she saw herself with regard to her attitudes was not entirely how her Colleagues (i.e., Boss and 6 Peers) nor Processing Plant (4 Operators and 4 Customers) perceived her. All three negative perceptions in her Self responses were perceived by the other two aggregate response groups - that is, the three minuses in the white area where the three Circles overlap. There were also a few more minuses that were not in her Self responses. This was where she did not see herself as others saw her.
The Histogram shows that her Self perception of her attitudes is only 50% positive, 25% non-committal, and 25% negative - suggesting that she may know she has a bit of a problem with her attitudes. Her Colleagues’ perceptions of her attitudes are 79% negative and those of the Processing Plant are 63% negative. Although Jill may have had a feeling that her attitudes were not too positive, this HIPSYS application highlighted something for her that is normally very difficult to measure – and to discuss. Responses to some of the questions on this facet follow.
Figure 1.9
Assist Display Showing Responses to Question 12 on Attitudes
Figure 1.10
Assist Display Showing Responses to Question 47 on Attitudes
Figure 1.11
Assist Display Showing Responses to Question 56 on Attitudes
So far, in the Circles and the Histogram we have looked only at the aggregate response groups. We can, if we wish, separate out the component groups to make comparisons in any combination we like. (See Chapter Five.) For example, we could compare her Boss’ perceptions (Red Circle) of Jill’s Attitudes with those of her Peers (Yellow Circle) and her Customers (Blue Circle) as follows:
Figure 1.12
Circles and Histogram Display of Responses of Component Groups in Attitude Facet
This shows that the Operators did not perceive her attitudes quite as negatively as did her Boss (who was noncommittal on 42% of the questions) or her Peers. But if we compare Peers, Operators and Customers (see Figure 1.13), we see that her Customers’ perceptions of her Attitudes were about as negative as those of her Peers (71% compared with 79%), although not always on the same issues - as indicated by the degree of congruence between the Red and the Blue Circles.
Figure 1.13
Comparing with Figure 1.12 Enables Comparison
of Responses of Different Component Groups
If you wish, you can choose several Circles displays to show all combinations of the data at once, as follows:
Figure 1.14
Comparison of Responses of Different Component Groups
Histograms can display all the aggregate response groups and their component groups at once (the font size can be reduced to fit them all in, see page 99), as follows:
Figure 1.15
Comparison of Responses of All Component Groups
to Attitudes Facet by Histogram
However, although Jill had an attitude problem that was beginning to disrupt the good teamwork that the Laboratory had hitherto enjoyed, in the facet Standard of Work and
Service she was exemplary. She was an excellent worker.
Figure 1.16
Circles and Histogram Display of Jill’s Facet
Standard of Work and Service
So, HIPSYS reinforced Jill’s strengths and gave her a focus on what she had to do to improve. Most people who are confronted with this kind of feedback feel a bit taken aback to start with, but they soon realise it is given to help them, appreciate the eye-opener and try to improve. A follow-up HIPSYS a year or so later can be very encouraging.
Jill didn’t wait for that. She resigned the following day and the client broke out the champagne.
Cases like Jill’s have happened in less that 1% of cases. The overwhelmingly more common outcome is a positive one for the individual and for those with whom he or she has an interface.
Jack’s Case: A positive outcome from everyone’s perspective
In the beginning Jack’s case had some similarities to Jill’s. Jack was a Factory Manager in charge of a factory with about 300 employees and in an organisation that had four factories and employed over 1,200 people.
Everyone conceded that, technically, he was the most knowledgeable and competent manager in the organisation. He was well respected by his own employees and by some departmental heads but clashed with every other factory manager in the organisation. He treated with blatant disdain those less knowledgeable and competent than himself and was not interested in mentoring or assisting in any way anyone outside his own factory.
He had very firm opinions on how things should be done in the organisation and whilst his own factory was very well run, he could not appreciate, nor did he care about, the particular difficulties that other factories had to grapple with.
His attitude to organisational issues such as maintenance, traffic co-ordination, capital investment, supplies, and industrial relations was parochial in that he cared only about how it would affect his particular factory. Each factory was different in terms of its age, technology, raw materials, processes and culture, but Jack thought everyone should run their factory the way he ran his and he did not suffer fools gladly.
When a new CEO was appointed he counselled Jack about his attitude. Jack acknowledged the CEO’s points but nothing changed. ‘And why should it?’ he thought. Everyone knew he ran the most profitable factory in the organisation.
The CEO then decided that he and all his managers and supervisory staff, 74 in all, would undergo a HIPSYS to see how they were behaving in terms of the Code of Values that he had established for the organisation. Following the procedure outlined In Table 1.14 on Page 33, a new HIPSYS class was created to achieve this. (See HIPSYS class sunsugar.) It was structured as shown in Tables 1.4 and 1.5. The number of Peers and Subordinates shown relates to Jack only.
Table 1.4
Parent Response Groups and Component Groups
|
Parent Response Group |
Component Groups |
|
SELF |
N/A |
|
BOSS |
N/A |
|
COLLEGAUES |
|
Table 1.5
Facets
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
As can be seen from Figure 1.17 below, Jack did not have too many communications problems with his subordinates but he did have some with his boss and with some of his peers.
Figure 1.17
Jack’s Circles Display of the Communications Facet comparing the perceptions of himself with those of his Boss and his peers and his Boss and his subordinates in Year One
The facet named Above the Line related to attitudes. The polarised responses in the blue circles in Figure 1.18 below show that Jack was perceived by his Boss and by some of his peers and subordinates to have had some attitude problems. His noncommittal responses, indicated by the small size of his red circle (SELF), suggest that he was probably aware of this but wasn’t going to admit it – yet.
Figure 1.18
Jack’s Circles Display of the Above the Line Facet comparing the perceptions of himself with those of his Boss and his peers and his Boss and his subordinates In Year One
When the results for all 74 key personnel were in, the consultant wrote up, from the HIPSYS Print Special printout (see pages 108-109), a tentative report with action points for each individual. He then had a private two-hour session with each individual in which his/her results were displayed on a monitor and discussed face-to-face. After each facet was thoroughly discussed, the tentative report and its action points (APs) were displayed and read out aloud by the consultant. Each individual made whatever changes to the wording he/she wanted. Then the next facet was explored. Only when this whole process was completed were the reports with Action Points printed out and given to the individual together with the HIPSYS Print Special printout.
Jack’s Action Points for the Communications and Above the Line facets from the first HIPSYS intervention were as follows:
Open and Honest Communication: A responsibility to communicate and keep people informed on matters that affect their work. This includes a requirement to communicate deficiencies in work performance and to accept criticism of our own performance as an essential component of our development.
Most people regard me as open and honest and a good listener. I believe I communicate enough with the people I work with but my boss is noncommittal and my peers are polarised about that. My peers are also polarised on whether I update people regularly on all our work related matters. Whilst my subordinates and I believe I regularly share ideas and views with others, my boss disagrees and my peers are, again, polarised. I do not believe I withhold information that may be important to others but my boss and most of my peers say I do and so do most of my subordinates.
AP10. I will ask my boss, my peers and my subordinates for examples of information they feel I may have withheld from them and ask them what more they expect of me as far as communications is concerned.
In spite of this, most agree that I do keep everybody up-to-date when things are changing and I do not try to avoid delivering ‘bad news’ to people. Nearly all my peers and my subordinates say I use my knowledge and experience to help others solve their problems, but my boss disagrees.
AP11. I will ask my boss why he has this perception of me so that I may learn, if necessary, how to interact with him on this aspect in the same way that I evidently do with my peers and my subordinates.
Above the Line: This means approaching issues in a positive solution focussed manner rather than a negative manner. Negativity and blame destroy the innovative culture essential to our success.
I encourage others to make positive contributions to problems at work and to look for solutions to problems rather than for culprits. Whilst I often tell others when someone has done well, most of my peers say my views and comments on company decisions are not always constructive and my boss, most of my subordinates and half my peers say I sometimes unintentionally say things that make others angry.
AP15. I will try to display more sensitivity and tact.
My subordinates are evenly divided on whether I sometimes speak negatively about other teams in the company, on whether I look for someone to blame when something goes wrong, and on whether I sometimes behave in a way that discourages good performance in others. This suggests that I am relating better to some of my subordinates than to others.
AP16. I will try to relate equally well to all of my subordinates.
In terms of whether I help to lift morale at work, my peers are polarised and my boss and my subordinates are noncommittal. If I attend to the Action Points above, I believe these perceptions of me will in time become more positive.
The following year, the exercise was repeated so that progress could be measured and monitored. Whilst Jack still had a few issues to attend to, his profile changed for the better on all six facets and, when compared with Figures 1.17 and 1.18 above, Figures 1.19 and 1.20 below show how much it changed in the Communications and Above the Line facets.
Figure 1.19
Jack’s Circles Display of the Communications Facet comparing the perceptions of himself with those of his Boss and his peers and his Boss and his subordinates in Year Two
Figure 1.20
Jack’s Circles Display of the Above the Line Facet comparing the perceptions of himself with those of his Boss and his peers and his Boss and his subordinates In Year Two
The following in an extract of Jack’s Action Points for the Communications and Above the Line Facets in Year Two:
Open and Honest Communication: A responsibility to communicate and keep people informed on matters that affect their work. This includes a requirement to communicate deficiencies in work performance and to accept criticism of our own performance as an essential component of our development.
Everyone agrees I communicate enough with the people I work with. They all agree I regularly share my ideas and views with others and use my knowledge and experience to help others solve their problems. This latter point was an issue for me with my boss last year (AP11), which I seem to have fixed up.
Again, my boss and all of my peers and subordinates agree I update people regularly on all our work related matters, especially when things are changing. Most agree I do not withhold information important to others but my peers are, overall, polarised on that. This was an issue for me with my boss, my peers and my subordinates last year (AP10). I appear to have effectively addressed it with my boss and my subordinates but not yet satisfactorily with all my peers.
AP4. I will ask my peers if this perception they have of me is a historical one, or based on their observations of me over the past twelve months. If it is the latter, I will ask them for examples of information they feel I may have withheld from them and ask them what more they expect of me as far as communications is concerned.
Nevertheless, everyone says I am open and honest and do not avoid delivering ‘bad news’ to people when necessary. I am generally regarded as a good listener.
AP5. I will continue to demonstrate these good communications skills and to take responsibility for keeping people informed on matters that affect their work.
Above the Line: This means approaching issues in a positive solution focussed manner rather than a negative manner. Negativity and blame destroy the innovative culture essential to our success.
Everyone agrees I encourage others to make positive contributions to problems at work and, whilst my boss and my peers agree I look for solutions to problems rather than for someone to blame, my subordinates are polarised on that. At first glance this seems inconsistent with what they said about me in Q56 in the Teamwork facet, but one more ‘Disagree’ there would have polarised that result too.
AP8. When problems arise, I will ensure that I focus on looking for solutions rather than on looking for culprits.
Almost all of my subordinates agree with me that my views and comments on company decisions are always constructive but my peers disagree and my boss is noncommittal.
AP9. When expressing my views and making comments on company decisions in the presence of my boss and my peers, I will ensure that I do so with the same objectivity and constructive intent that I evidently do in the presence of my subordinates.
Most agree I do not speak negatively about other teams in the company. In fact, I often tell others when someone has done well. My boss agrees with me that I do not say things, even unintentionally, that make others angry but my peers disagree and my subordinates are polarised. This was an issue for me with my peers and subordinates last year too (AP15) and I do not appear to have effectively addressed it.
AP10. When communicating with my peers and my subordinates I will ensure that I show them all the same degree of tact and respect that I evidently show to my boss.
Nevertheless, most say I never behave in a way that discourages good performance in others and this shows an improvement in the perceptions of my subordinates compared with last year, indicating I have effectively addressed my last year’s AP16.
My boss is noncommittal, but all my subordinates and most of my peers agree I am generally regarded as having a positive attitude. All say I help lift morale at work and this, too, is an improvement on last year.
AP11. I will continue to display positive attitudes at all times and so contribute to the creation and maintenance of a co-operative and productive organisational climate.
Figure 1.21 below shows the increased positive congruence in Jack’s overall HIPSYS profile in Year 2 compared with Year 1.
Figure 1.21
Jack’s Summary HIPSYS Profiles in Year 1 and Year 2
In these two examples, a HIPSYS intervention gave Jill and Jack the same opportunity – the opportunity to learn how to improve their communications and their attitudes whilst maintaining their high standards of work. Jill chose to reject the opportunity and Jack chose to accept it. So far, more than 99% of HIPSYS individual participants have been Jacks, showing it to be a valuable tool in the hands of a competent consultant/facilitator.
How to Use HIPSYS to Develop Teamwork
Now let’s see how HIPSYS can be used to develop teamwork. Good teamwork must start at the top. If the leaders haven’t got their act together as a team, it is unrealistic to expect good teamwork consistent with organisational goals anywhere else in the organization. In examining teamwork with HIPSYS there are two main approaches:
1.1 the team leaders meet with their teams to explore and discuss the results displayed on a screen, and/or:
1.2 the team leaders meet as a peer group to explore and discuss their results
displayed on a screen.
2.1 the team leaders meet with their teams to explore and discuss the results (i.e., the perceptions team-members have of the management team as a whole) displayed on a screen, and/or:
2.2 the team leaders meet as a peer group to explore and discuss the results
displayed on a screen.
If they elect to examine, say, eight facets of their role as leaders/managers, an individual’s Circles display in the case of Approach 1, may look like this:
Figure 1.22
Multi-Facet Display of Target ‘A’s HIPSYS Profile
If each manager/team leader undergoes the same class of HIPSYS as individuals, they can then meet to compare and discuss results by displaying them facet-by-facet on a screen as shown in Figure 1.23:
Figure 1.23
Display of a Management Team’s Delegation Facet
Histograms and questions with all response groups (Assist mode) can also be displayed and discussed in as much detail as is required. Action Plans for individual and team development can then be formulated and followed up. A further HIPSYS application, say, six to twelve months later will enable individual and group progress to be monitored and measured. Knowing this is going to happen, and perhaps be displayed, helps to get them implementing the required changes. All of this is explained in Chapter Five.
The facets and questions vary from client to client. A HIPSYS class used in the mining industry (HIPSYS Class mgt12) contains only three parent image perspectives (or response groups); namely, SELF, BOSS and SUBORDINATES, with no breakdown into component response groups, as shown in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6
Structure of HIPSYS Class mgt12
|
Parent Image Perspective |
Component Groups |
|
SELF |
N/A |
|
BOSS |
N/A |
|
SUBORDINATES |
N/A |
And the mgt12 class contains the following twelve facets:
Table 1.7
Facets in HIPSYS Class mgt12
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
The mgt12 class was adapted to produce a total of four response groups with one Parent image perspective, COLLEAGUES, having two component groups and renamed the prodengr class (because it was applied to production engineers), as shown in Table 1.8.
Table 1.8
Response Groups in HIPSYS prodengr Class
|
Parent Image Perspective |
Component Groups |
|
SELF |
N/A |
|
COLLEAGUES |
|
|
SUBORDINATES |
N/A |
The prodengr class had nine facets as shown in Table 1.9. You will notice that it includes six facets from the mgt12 (v ) class plus three new ones (Ñ ).
Table 1.9
Facets in HIPSYS prodengr Class
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ñ Organisational Awareness |
Ñ Assertiveness |
Ñ Honouring Sponsors |
A class used by some government departments had four different structures to reflect interfaces with different response groups but all examined the same following facets:
Table 1.10
Facets in HIPSYS Govt Class
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
A tertiary education institution developed a class of HIPSYS that looks at the following front-line management indicators of competency:
Table 1.11
Facets in HIPSYS Class fmicomp (Available on request)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
There are many more HIPSYS classes already developed. (See HIPSYS Methodology Manual, Chapter 26.) You can take the one that best suits your client and adapt it as you wish, i.e., add or delete facets, change questions, change image perspectives and their component groups. Or you can create an entirely new class from scratch; that is, create your own image perspectives and component groups, your own facets, and your own questions. (See Chapter Three of this Handbook.)
HIPSYS Applied to Organizations
We have looked at how HIPSYS can be applied to individuals and to teams. It can also be applied to organizations and to products and services. Let’s have a brief look at an organizational application.
Here is an example of an organization (Base Metals Processing Inc. – BMPI) that decided to use HIPSYS for an internal organizational survey in which the results would be fed back to and discussed with all employees in small peer groups. They did the same survey again twelve months later and found they had improved in nine out of eleven facets, stayed the same on one (Management), and regressed only in the facet Work Organization. And that was as a short-term consequence of all the other changes they had implemented.
The three Parent (or aggregate) response groups (sometimes called "Image Perspectives" – see Chapter Seven) were Management, Supervisors and Workforce made up as follows:
Table 1.12
Structure of HIPSYS Class bmpi1
|
Parent Response Group |
Component Response Groups |
|
MANAGEMENT |
|
|
SUPERVISORS |
|
|
WORKFORCE |
|
The multi-facet display for the first survey was:
Figure 1.24
Multi-Facet Display of BMPI’s HIPSYS Profile in Year One
And the following year:
Figure 1.25
Multi-Facet Display of BMPI’s HIPSYS Profile in Year Two
This "Before and After" comparison showed the client organization the value they had obtained from applying the HIPSYS program and methodology. It enabled them to explore and discuss in a meaningful way issues of concern to employees at all levels, listen to their feedback and recommendations, and formulate action plans to improve.
More detailed information on this HIPSYS consulting assignment is given as Case #11 in Chapter 18 of the HIPSYS Methodology Manual.
HIPSYS was originally created as a model for identifying and managing corporate image and it continues to be used for this purpose. (See Chapter Seven of this Handbook and HIPSYS Methodology Manual: A Guide to the Development and Application of HIPSYS.) In such applications, the Parent response groups are called "Image Perspectives" and are as follows:
SELF IMAGE : Red Circle
PROJECTED IMAGE : Yellow Circle
PERCEIVED IMAGE : Blue Circle
As with other applications, each of the three image perspectives can be broken down into several component groups as required. Table 1.13 is an example:
Table 1.13
Possible Breakdown of Parent Image Perspectives into Component Response Groups
|
Parent Image Perspective |
Component Response Group |
|
SELF IMAGE |
|
|
PROJECTED IMAGE |
|
|
PERCEIVED IMAGE |
|
Consultants are developing new classes of HIPSYS all the time. One consultant has developed a HIPSYS class to compare perceptions of roadside service warranties by vehicle type, male/female, and age group. Another has used HIPSYS to measure the effects on performance of Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills.
However, before you think about any of that, you need to learn how to use it. It’s fairly straightforward if you just carefully follow the procedures; and if you decide to use an existing class and just modify it a bit, it’s pretty easy. Like anything, the more practice you get, the easier it becomes.
Table 1.14 below summarises the processes for individual, team and organisational applications and the remaining chapters explain how to drive the HIPSYS program and use it with appropriate consulting methodologies.
Procedures of HIPSYS Methodologies
|
Step No. |
Individual Applications |
Team Applications |
Organisational Applications |
|
1 |
Identify issues with CEO, management team and by interviews with random diagonal slice. |
Examine role relationships to classify teams by role interdependencies. |
Identify issues with CEO, management team and by interviews with random diagonal slice. |
|
2 |
Choose facets to be explored, e.g., from individuals’ duty statements, organisation’s code of values, and perceptions of relevant individuals and groups. |
Follow steps 1 to 10 for Individual Applications for each member of the team. |
Choose facets to be explored, e.g., from individuals’ duty statements, organisation’s code of values, and perceptions of various stakeholders. |
|
3 |
Decide structure, i.e. Managers, Supervisors, Workforce; or, Self Image, Projected Image and Perceived Image, etc., plus any breakdowns of the three image perspectives. |
Meet with team and display and explain summary results of all team members simultaneously. |
Decide structure, i.e. Managers, Supervisors, Workforce; or, Self Image, Projected Image and Perceived Image, etc., plus any breakdowns of the three image perspectives. |
|
4 |
Develop draft questions from existing classes, adapt existing class or create new one from scratch. |
Display first facet for all team members simultaneously. |
Develop draft questions from existing classes, adapt existing class or create new one from scratch. |
|
5 |
Client to sign off on structure and draft questionnaires. |
Display results for discussion of each individual one at a time and assist in developing Action Points. |
Client to sign off on structure and draft questionnaires. |
|
6 |
Print and distribute questionnaires or distribute key codes for input on-line. |
Display next facet and discuss each individual’s issues and continue until all facets and individual’s issues have been adequately discussed and Action Points agreed. |
Print and distribute questionnaires or distribute key codes for input on-line. |
|
7 |
Input data manually from completed questionnaires. (NB: This step is not necessary if questionnaires are completed on-line.) |
Display summary results for all team members simultaneously and summarise outcomes. |
Input data manually from completed questionnaires. (NB: This step is not necessary if questionnaires are completed on-line.) |
|
8 |
Consultant to view data and prepare report on results with tentative Action Points. |
Prepare report to client of overall outcomes. |
Consultant to view data and prepare initial report on results. |
|
9 |
Display results to each individual via laptop and/or monitor and discuss. |
Repeat process to measure and monitor progress. |
Display results via data projector and discuss initial report with CEO/Board. |
|
10 |
Amend Action Points as required and print out. |
Display, explore and discuss results in peer groups by department. |
|
|
11 |
Prepare report to client of aggregate results of individuals overall. |
Prepare final report with findings and recommendations. |
|
|
12 |
Repeat process to measure and monitor progress. |
Repeat process to measure and monitor progress. |