EMAC ASSESSMENTS, LLC

CREATE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE WITH EMAC'S LAMPE

LEADERSHIP MODEL AND OUR HALO TECHNOLOGIES.

WHY DEVELOP METHODS LIKE OUR HALO TECHNOLOGY?

Frankly, the original reason was self-defense. Early on, and since corroborated in every project for a quarter century, we saw a common pattern: Management would present its problem definition of its existing design problems. But in reality the "presented problem" never turned out in the end to be their actual organizational problem. This mismatch occurred every time. Our direct experience tells us that managers of client organizations are generally intelligent men and women whose judgment earned our respect. So, why were they always "off the mark" in identifying their organizational design problems?

This glaring inconsistency demanded serious thinking to explain how knowledgeable and intelligent executives were unable to identify and formulate their organizational design problems. Early on, it was clear that executives simply lacked a language for capturing their intuitive understandings. It was also clear that most lacked a wholistic, comprehensive view of the entire organization because they were extremely busy doing their jobs in their parts of the organization. They tended to see the organization's problems in terms of their own tasks and training. What they saw depended upon where they sat. Furthermore, some managers personalize the issues and are prone to blame others as the sources of their problems. The blame game is corrosive. It misdirects one's judgments, yet it is strangely satisfying. Managers try to offer explicit information to explain explicit problems. However, in most cases, the underlying organizational issues are likely to be "hidden" or tacit. Consequently, "rational" explanations of the problems are misleading.

The same qualities that make managers strong and competent can lead them to look for and advocate precise answers to what turn out to be the wrong problems. Hence, there is a real business need to discover a better way to find and formulate organizational issues. There are many labels one could use to describe this need. Perhaps the best is wisdom. Another is avoiding making the bone-head, stupid mistake. Innovation, competence, and wisdom are important. The main reason to develop better methods for diagnosing organizations is that organizational diagnoses prevent committing Type III Errors.

What began as a practical problem of self-defense to develop proposals and solutions that were on target with the client's real needs has, step-by-step, evolved into the present HALO technology. The HALO incorporates many advances in theory and method. Take a close look at a description of the Improved Theory Behind HALO and our Advanced Methods for Identifying and Formulating Strategic Organizational Issues.

Innovation, Competence , and Wisdom

Innovation and continuous change is not an option. Successful organizations remain successful by continually improving their products, services, and management. "Innovate or die" is not just a slogan. It states the obvious: organizations must confront the imperative to become efficiently adaptable, i.e. good at change. There must be organizational level learning in order to prosper.

There are many proposed remedies to accomplish this. These fall into two categories: "hard" and "soft." "Hard" remedies deal with technology, product and quality improvement, cost controls, improving service delivery, and adopting improved information systems. "Soft" remedies include becoming more adept at learning and making better use of one's people, providing real incentives, improving organizational processes, being ethical, and designing ones organization to manage more effectively. Research consistently demonstrates that the open secret to sustaining the flow of "hard" remedies is managing the "soft" ones. Conventional wisdom is on target: the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is always about people and management.

The lesson of the demise of the dot.coms proves this. Competence and wisdom are not the same. Competence is judged by solving problems precisely. Wisdom is judged by working on the right problems. Competence is commonplace. Wisdom is rare. The key to wisdom is avoiding precise solutions to the wrong problems.

Providing precise solutions to the wrong problems is known as a Type III Error. Avoiding Type III errors is an important characteristic of a wise person.

Type III Error

In standard texts on statistics there are two types of errors. Type I is rejecting a null hypothesis when it is, in fact, true. Type II errors occur when one accepts the null hypothesis when it is, in fact, false. Back in 1968, the statistician Howard Raiffa proposed a third type of error, the Type III. A Type III Error is solving the wrong problem precisely.

The 1998 text by Ian Mitroff entitled, Smart Thinking for Crazy Times: The Art of Solving the Right Problem (Berrett-Koehler) provides an extensive analysis of actions for avoiding Type III Errors.

Organizational Diagnoses Prevent Committing Type III Errors

Wisdom is acquired through learning from experience and experience is often the result of painful mistakes. Mistakes incur high tuition costs and can be avoided by taking advantage of the wisdom of others.

Learning from experience involves problem solving. Problem solving is more than arriving at a competent solution. It requires the rare talent of both identifying and formulating the problem. The ability to avoid working competently on the wrong problem depends on the talent to both identify and formulate it before hand.

The key to wisdom is, therefore, a proper diagnosis. Self diagnosis is always recommended but its worth depends upon having the right information. It is vital to have multiple sources of information. Most organizations can provide information about their "hard" problems but rarely about the "soft" problems which lie behind them. Consequently, a self diagnosis of one's organizational problems can be the cause of working on the wrong problem; making the dreaded Type III Error.

EMAC Assessment has developed improved theory and advanced methods for identifying and formulating strategic organizational issues. We believe that our HALO is the best in the world. Our HALO provides you web access to this remarkable tool. It is the result of over 30 years of research and 25 years of organizational design consulting. It has been widely published in the scientific literature.