Four Groups Blog

We were recently featured in a piece on the HR Matters site. We spoke about our work with 4G and how it can aid understanding and problem solving efforts. Here’s a quick introduction.

We discussed the idea that people-based issues can be managed in a systematic and structured manner, something that Bruce is firmly in support of. 4G represents a proprietary approach developed by his company to understand and predict intangible aspects of people’s personality, interaction and values. However, our conversation was not so much about 4G itself but about taking a holistic approach and the how’s and why’s of it.

The full piece can be found here and our thanks go out to Rowena Morais and Isabella Chan for bearing with us!

Summary

There is a tension at the heart of our efforts to collaborate. This tension and its possible resolution is best captured by the following questions.

• Should we be putting people first, before technology, in our efforts to collaborate?
• Does collaboration benefit from a more formal process?
• Can collaboration be encouraged in a replicable and systematic manner (as much as anything concerning people can be repeatable and systematic)?
• Does the lack of a formal process for optimising collaboration hold back productivity and performance?

This article attempts to answer these questions and shine new light on what constitutes successful collaboration.

What is collaboration?

At the outset, it is useful to consider what we actually mean when we talk about ‘collaboration’[1]. Wikipedia defines collaboration as “a recursive process where two or more people work together toward an intersection of common goals, for example, an intellectual endeavour that is creative in nature. In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.” By way of contrast, Google offers us 26 possible definitions.

While wanting to avoid any jargon, what is most striking about the various definitions is how frequently the concept of informality is seen as being intrinsic to collaboration. By extension (and certainly from a management perspective), it is this apparent informality that creates a paradox, or at least some significant contrasts around collaboration. The table below illustrates these ideas and the tension between collaborative ways of working and more formal approaches.

Whilst acknowledging that an organisation’s preference is for methods of working that can be most easily measured and managed, the paradox of collaboration lies at the heart of knowing which way of working is most suited to the task at hand. Put another way, it is a case of more control versus less control, more spontaneity versus less, or even greater adoption of change or not. It is these contrasts and inconsistencies lying at the heart of how we choose to organise work that creates an apparent gap or tension in collaboration. This is then especially relevant for those who seek to encourage or promote collaboration within organisations.

(more…)

Summary

By making the traditionally intangible aspects of an organisation tangible, managers can benefit from superior information and greater choice. This new perspective combines insights and knowledge that would previously only have been available by chance alone with a comprehensive view of the organisation in question.

Factors that Drive Intangibles

The recognition and subsequent rise in the importance and value of intangibles has been an ongoing feature of management for some time. Examples such as Knowledge Management, Balanced Scorecards (BSC) and Strategic Planning all attempt to quantify and make tangible aspects of an organisation that are initially intangible in nature.

While there are many examples of tools and techniques to make information more tangible, it is also useful to ask why this trend has been put in motion and what advantages are available from it. The three ideas below are by no means exhaustive, but are an attempt to shed light on the factors that drive the importance of intangibles.

• Economics
• Execution
• Experience

The economic aspect of intangibles looks at two main areas. The first is a broad consensus that intangibles contribute to superior financial performance. Examples include linking activities such as brand valuation, human capital and innovation to increased shareholder returns. A second economic aspect of intangibles looks at increasing efficiency and reducing costs through an improved understanding of intangible costs and the factors of production. Activity based costing is one example of this approach and by better understanding the tangible and intangible costs of production[1], it is possible to generate improvements and efficiencies in resource allocation.

(more…)

Meg Ellis made some comments on our 4G and Myers Briggs/MBTI posting .

The MBTI reported type code is a beginning point for people to determine their “best fit” type. They may behave differently from what their preferences are. Life is that way. Work demands we use aspects of ourselves that are not our favorite use of time. That’s true in other aspects of our lives as well. Therefore, MBTI is not predictive of future behaviors.

That’s one reason why there is no best pairing of people in significant relationships according to MB Type Code alone. There are benefits and challenges no matter who we partner with. Granted some are easier than others.

I assume that 4G measures traits or behaviors which can predict how successful a relationship can be. Not so with Myers-Briggs.

I think this is an excellent summation of one of the differences between MBTI and 4G. However, it also raises a question in my mind over how such instruments reflect day to day reality. Surely there has to be something deeper or ‘better’ to measure in order to represent people’s own reality of relationships and that ‘some (relationships) are easier than others‘? Put another way,

…there is no best pairing of people in significant relationships according to MB Type Code alone

But in reality, we all know that some relationships are more equal than others!

Myers Briggs (or MBTI) is possibly the most popular psychometric is use today and there is no shortage of people who write about this model. Given, however, some of the similarities between Myers and 4G, people often ask what the key differences are. In essence, 4G introduces the idea of Social Relationships and more specifically, a framework which outlines optimal relationship combinations. The following re-written extract is taken from the Myers Briggs site and hopefully highlights this point. The italics show the changes added whilst the original is shown below.

Type differences in relationships can be a source of growth and/or conflict. However, within 4G, there are a number of ideal or more successful combinations of types in relationships than others.

The original from the Myers Briggs site follows.

Type differences in relationships can be a source of growth and/or conflict. However, there are no best or more successful combinations of types in relationships.