Step 2: Plotting the Methods

Setting parameters is oriented to enabling maximum feasible results, even if some parameters (e.g. ethical) may seem limiting. Because it leaves open what goals, programs and activities might be instituted, it can be accompanied with intense pressure for performance. So it scores very high on the X-axis.

Unless everybody agrees with those parameters and works to them, the method has little effect: so expensive mission statements posted on notice boards are a mockery. There must be a high concern for engagement, and on finding and retaining committed people. So it is scored very high on the Y-axis.

Guidance is imposed because everyone must know where efforts should be heading and the expected rate of progress. Where work only contributes indirectly to the goals, shared guidance permits meshing of efforts. Guidance itself exerts little pressure for results because it does not address feasibility or consider the many tasks and obstacles in reaching an end result. So it rates very low on the X-axis.

Guidance must not only be credible, understandable, and practical if it is to be used, but everyone must follow it for a successful overall result. However, most people have their own agendas. So there is an absolute necessity to get everyone on board, and close attention must be given to group attitudes. Time must be allocated to persuading and explaining. So the method scores very high on the Y-axis.

Shaping evolution is about putting existing efforts and challenges into the full real-world context, where numerous relevant factors have fluctuating influences. The method leads to choices and pushing for changes of various sorts, so as to enable a general movement towards given goals. In doing this, there is minimal pressure for specific results. So the method is rated very low on the X-axis.

In shaping disparate interacting efforts that are underway, each is viewed as significant in its own right. Rather than demanding cooperation, the method builds on existing tendencies and natural momentum. As a result, the need for engagement is minimal and rates very low on the Y-axis.

Situations blow up for any manager at any level, and they require a response. The effort here is primarily about regaining control of the situation, and optimizing or maximizing results takes second place. So this must score low on the X-axis. However, there is always some inherent pressure for specific benefits or to protect collateral desired outcomes, so pressure is greater than in shape evolution-t5.

When problematic situations develop, the attention is on the issue rather than the views of individuals or groups. Because their engagement is broadly taken for granted, this methods scores low on the Y axis. However, it is not at the extreme because people need to be activated and influenced to participate in handling the emergent problem.

Introducing methods by structuring and regulating work processes commonly aims for greater efficiency, legal compliance and information collection. These deflect from results and mean that the approach rates low on the X-axis. However, it is not at the extreme because all rules and arrangements need to take explicit account of impacts on output quality and quantity.

Procedural tools and devised methods are not part of anyone's natural work style and so effort is required to engage those who must use them. Consultation, with sensitivity to feedback and responsiveness to criticism, is needed if systems are not to be ignored or undermined. So it rates high on the Y-Axis. However, not extremely high because it is usually in the interests of those doing the work to have a system, rather than flounder in chaos.

Implementing programs is about controlling activity in the service of development and so it generates an overt pressure for results. This leads to a high score on the X-axis. However, not extremely high because there is a deflection of effort into supportive activities like documentation, information collection and analysis.

Proper engagement is required for effective participation. Without it, control documents are misunderstood, deadlines are missed, and cost-control is lost. So the method scores high on the Y-axis. However, not very high because people naturally enjoy seeing progress and like their work to be coordinated with others and facilitated.

Specifying outputs creates a direct pressure for results, and seeks or even forces performance. So the method must be rated high on the X-Axis. However, the manager has considerable scope in what is specified. Engagement is also given variable attention because a great deal depends on individual commitment and capability. So the method is rated low on the Y-axis.

Minimum requirement: There has to be a minimum requirement which is about the rationale for the work or even survival of the outfit. This minimum involves less pressure because it is a take-it-or-leave-it position, and it moves the plot left along the X-axis. However, because the minimum cannot be neglected, the manager has a greater need to engage staff, and this moves the plot higher up the Y-axis. Considering both dimensions, the plot moves towards the upper left of the quadrant.

Maximum feasible: The manager is always seeking the maximum feasible output by increasing pressure for results. So the plot moves to the extreme right of the X-axis. The best results depend absolutely on the energy and creative commitment of the individual(s) involved, and if that is operative then engagement can be taken for granted. So the plot moves down the Y-Axis. Considering both dimensions, the plot moves to the lower right of the quadrant.