Frameworks

31/7/2018

People sometimes ask if I have a guiding framework for fields of practice that range from individual and team coaching to organisation development. To be honest, it’s difficult to pin down definitively without becoming simplistic. After all, we work with people, cultures, systems and contexts that are dynamically complex. Different people, situations and times call for different interventions. Here-and-now presence, openness, curiosity and trust are prerequisite conditions for successful outcomes.

That said, I often hold 5 x Rs in mind as potential areas for attention. Each R represents a different and inter-related dimension of experience, awareness and practice that commonly influences a client’s inspiration and effectiveness. The Rs are: Results, Relationships, Resourcefulness, Resilience and Reflexivity (sometimes known as ‘critical reflective practice’ or ‘praxis’). I may explore and apply these dimensions with a client at different levels ranging from intra/inter-personal to organisational.

Results focuses on who or what is most important to a client and other key stakeholders and taps into e.g. vision, values, purpose, strategy, plans and outcomes. Relationships focuses on the quality of client contact with and between key stakeholders and taps into e.g. ethics, cultures, systems, synergies and dependencies. Resourcefulness focuses on solutions, strengths and opportunities in the client/environment and taps into e.g. spirituality, talent, creativity, innovation and networks.

Resilience focuses on client health, wellbeing and sustainability and taps into e.g. motivation, engagement, patterns-trends, agility and flow. Reflexivity focuses on the client’s critical self- and situational awareness, stance and actions and taps into e.g. assumptions, constructs, influences, behaviours and decisions. I place the latter at the centre of this model because, at best, it radically questions, challenges and guides all other dimensions. It lays at the heart of transformational change.

What frameworks do you use and find most useful?

112 Comments

Gwen Griffith

1/8/2018 08:34:04 am

I’m always looking to you for models and frameworks!!! Thank you again! My mind struggles for categories.

Nick Wright

1/8/2018 08:34:38 am

Thanks Gwen. I hope you find it useful!

Lynn Johnston

1/8/2018 08:35:45 am

I am about to start engaging with some new clients, following a change to my role. I am going to use this model to frame my conversations over the months ahead. Thank you for sharing.

Nick Wright

1/8/2018 08:37:12 am

Thanks Lynn. That's encouraging to hear. Let us know how you get on!

Sam Young

2/8/2018 07:11:48 pm

I really like Hellriegel & Slocums' take on the 7S model. It shows us what we need to focus on when we want change to stick, and helps us with the WHAT to look at, alongside Kotter's HOW: http://www.samyoung.co.nz/2017/06/making-change-stick.html

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 07:13:48 pm

Hi Sam. I'm familiar with the McKinsey 7S framework. What is Hellriegel & Slocums' take on it? I'm intrigued.

Heather Day

2/8/2018 07:15:11 pm

I really like this model Nick and the fact that Reflexivity is at the centre or heart of the model. I would think that a systemic coaching approach which I use with my clients would fit well into this R as it would include stance and examine the unconscious dynamics that can be present.

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 07:20:31 pm

Thanks Heather. Yes, we could think of the 5xRs as a human systems framework. I would be very interested to hear more about the systemic coaching approach you use, perhaps with an example from experience to illustrate it?

Heather Day

3/8/2018 09:32:15 am

Hi Nick I trained as a facilitator with John Whittington https://www.coachingconstellations.com. I love the stance of this approach. As a coach you work in service of the system rather than the client and hidden dynamics are often revealed which illuminate the coaching conversation. There are 3 core principles to address or pay attention to in this approach : place, time and exchange. All of these are underpinned by acknowledgement. I have many examples of client work using this approach and would be happy to have a conversation with you about it?

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 09:42:29 am

Thanks Heather. Yes, I am familiar with constellations work. It can raise all kinds of awareness that is far less likely through simple conversation alone. Sounds like you have some great examples from experience. Would you be willing to share one here so that other folks are able to see it too? On a related theme, you may find this short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/micro-macro

Colin Wilson

2/8/2018 07:22:06 pm

A nice gift that I hadn't seen in this form. Thank you Nick. I've become more exposed to psychodynamic work recently. One is the Driver, Protector etc. Another is https://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064 (I haven't read the book but find the model useful).

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 07:28:52 pm

Thanks Colin. I partly developed this model as a basis for conversation with clients who are not familiar with this type of way of looking at people, teams and organisations. It provides a loose structure to help clients conceptualise issues and interventions and how they interact. Thank you for the psychodynamic references. interesting. I have just written an article for the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy's 'Coaching Today' journal that touches on psychodynamics alongside insights from Gestalt, existential psychology and social constructionism.

Martine Bolton

2/8/2018 07:30:10 pm

Wow. Excellent stuff Nick. Love it all ☺!

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 07:30:48 pm

Hi Martine. Thanks for such an encouraging response! :)

Willem Wijs, de

2/8/2018 07:31:41 pm

I just read the books by Karl Weick and Chris Argyris and listen to and interact with clients. Frameworks tend to frame.

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 07:32:57 pm

Hi Willem. Yes, there are clear resonances with reflexivity and sense-making in Weick's and Argyris' work, e.g. Argyris' triple loop learning.

Patrick O'Brien

2/8/2018 09:45:15 pm

Great stuff - thanks Nick.

I do not see enough openness and critical thinking at senior levels in many organisations at present. Too often the tool of choice for many executive leaders is personalised power.

This is a really helpful framework.

Nick Wright

2/8/2018 09:49:47 pm

Hi Patrick and thank you for such affirming feedback. On the reflexivity issue and executive leaders, you may find this short related piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/spots

Gareth Evans

3/8/2018 10:30:50 am

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the invitation to think out loud with you... I like your 5 Rs as they provide a generative frame (container?) for holding conversations about a set of important differences and distinctions to hold in mind.

As someone with a background in systemic therapy and HSD I also hold reflexivity to be a difference that makes a difference in my own practice (and praxis) - and to be playful too I would want to fold it into all of your other elements as in - reflexive relationships, reflexive resourcefulness, reflexive results and reflexive resilience - I think these then become great 'so what?' questions as in 'what does it mean for us, to be relationally reflexive with each other in this space and time unfolding?', etc

I think the HSD stance of 'standing in inquiry' shapes a container for holding all of this, and the elements you offer can then recursively offer 'points of departure' to inquire into, from within and out of...

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 10:39:42 am

Thanks Gareth. I agree. And my sense is that all aspects of the model are inter-related which is, itself, part of the reflexive piece. For instance (and this raises interesting questions about e.g. values, culture and strategy), we could support and challenge a client to be curious about, say, results-orientated relationships, or relationally-orientated results etc. What do you think?

Gareth Evans

3/8/2018 12:26:23 pm

Hi Nick, Definitely! There's something really valuable in being able to play (seriously? mindfully? irreverently??) with the ways in which these aspects interrelate and connect across their similarities and differences... and I think the nuances thrown up by exploring the tensions and possibilities in this are really valuable - if like you suggest we can hold our curiosity long enough for some 'news of difference' to emerge...

What else comes up for me is the whole thing around what the systems therapist John Burnham called 'relational risk-taking' - how do we use our reflexive awareness to work with clients around 'talking about how we're talking'?

So what can I do to articulate something of my inner process of noticing patterns, tensions, connections in my self-in-relation to the client system as-a-whole - moment to moment - so that it invites my client and I into a space where we can bring forth intra, inter and organisational patterns and explore them for their adaptive value?

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 12:41:19 pm

Hi Gareth. Great insights and ideas! I love your emphasis on play (seriously? mindfully? irreverently??) and possibilities for emergence through it. In terms of raising here-and-now awareness, I find insights and practices from Gestalt really useful, e.g. to pose paradoxical, provocative questions such as, 'What are we not talking about?' On broader reflexivity and use of self, you may find these related short pieces interesting?

*Spots: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/spots
*Reflective practice: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/reflective-practice
*2 x 2: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/2-x-2
*Use of self: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/use-of-self-in-coaching

Gareth Evans

3/8/2018 02:22:03 pm

Hi Nick,

I have a long enduring fondness for Gestalt and have used empty chair work and Gestalt/focusing/awareness exercises in both therapeutic and coaching work over the years.

I also see some interesting connections between Gestalt and HSD around patterns, tensions and the cycle of experience but have yet to explore these with as much depth and time as this deserves...

I'll take a look at the posts as well - thanks!

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 02:26:17 pm

Thanks Gareth. Are you familiar with 'field theory' in Gestalt? It resonates well with human system dynamics. Here's an excellent introductory paper by Malcolm Parlett: http://www.gisc.org/gestaltreview/documents/TheUnifiedFieldinPractice.pdf

Sue Green

3/8/2018 11:52:05 am

Hi Nick, I like your 5 R's framework, looks useful & reminds us to consider a broad range of factors etc when coaching. Personally I still use the old favourites like GROW, partly because it's so easy to share with coachees so that they can structure & guide their reflections. When I'm helping people to change self-limiting thinking I'm finding the Myndflex 3 C's helpful - Clarifying (negative or unhelpful thoughts), Challenging (critiquing those thoughts in terms of their reasonableness and helpfulness) and then Changing (replacing unhelpful thoughts & actions with more balanced, enabling ones.) More info on myndflex.co or by messaging me.

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 12:49:19 pm

Thanks Sue. Yes, it's possible to use GROW alongside the 5 x R model, e.g. as GROW in relation to each dimension or to the model/context as a whole. The Mydflex 3C model sounds similar to ideas in cognitive behavioural coaching. On that theme, you may find these related pieces interesting?

http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/cognitive-behavioural-coaching
http://www.nick-wright.com/fresh-thinking.html
http://www.nick-wright.com/gestalt-meets-cognitive-coaching.html

Bob Larcher

3/8/2018 02:27:26 pm

I use my own "model"

The essentials are:

Three roles:

Campaigning leadership - creating the desire to work towards the vision

Facilitating leadership - enabling groups contribute to “collectively” the vision

Empower leading - enabling individuals to contribute “individually” to the vision

Four dimensions:

Head - intellectual dimension: thoughts, analysis, etc.

Heart - emotional dimension: feelings, sentiments, etc.

Body - physical dimension: posture, movement, etc.

Soul - spiritual dimension: beliefs, values, etc.

But there are also “enablers” and “disablers”

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 02:30:12 pm

Hi Bob. I like it. I wonder if a 5th dimension could be systems/culture (cf Gestalt 'field theory') and if intuition could be added to 'body'?

Bob Larcher

8/8/2018 11:24:21 am

I also like the GLOBE Framework with its 22 universally positive leadership attributes and its 8 universally negative leadership attributes. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6432186156342870016

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 11:28:36 am

Hi Bob. Interesting lists. Two reflections come to mind: 1. How far does the model apply to team/dispersed leadership and 2. How far is it 'true' in different cultural contexts?

Erik Jensen

3/8/2018 03:27:47 pm

Rich Harwood stages of community:

https://buildingdialogue.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/5stages.pdf

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 03:29:04 pm

Thanks Erik. I like that model. Here's an alternative approach that I like too, starting with What is going well rather than What is not working: https://communitydevelopment.ces.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Appreciative-Inquiry3.pdf?fwd=no

Erik Jensen

3/8/2018 03:31:41 pm

Theories of Poverty:

http://www.rupri.org/Forms/WP06-05.pdf

Circle Process:

http://www.livingjusticepress.org/?SEC=51F9C610-C097-446A-8C60-05E8B4599FE7

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 03:32:09 pm

Thanks Eric. More interesting approaches!

Erik Jensen

3/8/2018 04:22:15 pm

For intentional group work based upon awareness of pitfalls as Tragedy of the Commons:

https://www.prosocial.world/

Nick, as your opening comment says, there are many good approaches and good tools available. The art form is in application of the best form in light of the ecological context. Thanks for posting the question and initiating this interaction. 🙏🏼

Nick Wright

3/8/2018 04:23:28 pm

Thanks Erik. I agree - and well said. Thank you for sharing so many interesting and useful links here.

Erik Jensen

3/8/2018 04:59:59 pm

Generally, I prefer Asset Based Community Development over Appreciative Inquiry. That said the approaches can be complimentary and both are helpful in the appropriate Ecological context..

As an undergraduate student many years back, I studied with Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner who developed ecological systems theory. It provides a foundation for my spirit, purpose and community connection:

https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/bronfenbrenner-ecological-theory/

Belinda Johnson White, Ph.D.

4/8/2018 11:11:11 am

Hello All, like Bob, I use my own models, which are the PRCC and 4Cs. The essentials are:

PRCC: 4 Stages of Leadership
Partnership - communicating vision (the why)
Relationship - building a team based on mutual respect (the will)
Companionship - marshalling resources and empowering the team (the work)
Championship - ensuring goal accomplishment (the win)

In order for a leader to successfully engage in the 4 stages of leadership, she would have to embody the 4Cs:
Character - values and principles
Calling - purpose driven vocation
Connection - extreme sensitivity and care for all others
Contribution - ethical legacy of service

Nick Wright

4/8/2018 11:18:12 am

Thanks Belinda. Another interesting model! I too often use my own models because they are born out of lived experience, make sense to me and prove useful in my work with clients. I think this is where the 'reflexivity' dimension is very important, challenging and enabling me, for instance, to question the constructs and personal/cultural assumptions in my own thinking and practice - including in my own models.

Bob Larcher

4/8/2018 07:31:12 pm

@ Belinda Johnson White, Ph.D.

Seems similar "communicating vision (the why)" sounds like my Campaigning, "Relationship" & "Companionship" seem to have elements of my Facilitating and Empowering and I can see similarities between your 4C's and my 4 Dimensions.

Richard A. Rodriguez, Ph.D.

4/8/2018 11:19:34 am

Transformational Leadership (especially Individual Consideration)

Nick Wright

4/8/2018 11:21:07 am

Hi Richard. Intriguing. Can you say more..?

Joram Kamau

6/8/2018 08:30:18 am

I like the simplicity.Yet it captures the key essentials.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:31:06 am

Thanks Joram - much appreciated.

Lesley Marie Bennett

6/8/2018 08:32:13 am

Thanks Nick and Erik for sharing.

Nick Wright.

6/8/2018 08:32:44 am

Thanks Lesley. You're welcome.

Marisol Escalera Durani

6/8/2018 08:33:29 am

Definitely looking to implement this strategy in my own professional growth! Thank you for sharing.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:34:21 am

Thanks Marisol. That is encouraging to hear. Let us know what happens when you do!

Kate Foster

6/8/2018 08:35:09 am

My go-to is Asset Based Community Development. I so appreciate the links, and the discussion. Thanks.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:36:26 am

Thanks Kate. It sounds like you are with Erik on that one!

Michelle Hoffman

6/8/2018 08:37:16 am

I have used Results Based Accountability http://raguide.org/ to help community collective impact initiatives come together to determine how to have accountable outcomes at different levels of participation. RBA predominantly divides outcomes and planning by population level strategies and outcomes which everyone can contribute to but no single entity has full accountability for and then performance accountability which shows individual organizations how to use the same framework at the organization level.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:38:31 am

Thanks Michelle. That's a new model for me. Thanks for the link. I will take a look.

Julie Mayer MBA FAIM

6/8/2018 08:42:20 am

Hi Nick I agree fully with your comments and I also find it hard to simplify when the aim is to draw from many frameworks to design a coaching regime for an individual.

I use the basic 'Strengths' based framework out of the counselling space to form the bottom line agenda, so the very old GROW coaching framework becomes the skeleton that I draw pieces of other frameworks into. I hope that makes sense .. again as you said it is hard to put into a simple statement.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:43:46 am

Thanks Julie. I think there are good resonances between strengths-based and solutions-focused/appreciative inquiry-based approaches.

Ed Shrager

6/8/2018 08:45:25 am

Not really a framework but Lots of things beginning with C! What i do related to culture climate capability and change. How I do it is through communicating being curious ‘humble consulting’ making connections celebrating success and continuous learning. My favourite model is ADKAR which I use all the time!

Thanks for the question!

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 08:50:45 am

Thanks Ed. Your 4 x Cs are very close to a 4 x C model I created in an article some years ago: http://www.nick-wright.com/paradigm-4c-dynamic-model.html Let me know what you think!

Helen Grantham

6/8/2018 08:56:16 am

I refer all the time to the burke-litwin model for organisation performance, while system view with people at the heart of it.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 09:00:14 am

Hi Helen. Yes, the Burke-Litwin model can be useful as an framework for OD strategy. I have questions these days about e.g. 'leadership' (e.g what it is and where/how/by whom it is exercised) - but that is a bigger issue!

Neill Hahn

6/8/2018 09:01:46 am

Interesting topic Nick.
I credit using Models (Frameworks) for the communications technology field advancing faster than other areas. Theories distract academics into a discussion summarized as "I don't know". Models show the relationship between component parts (as your 5 Rs does); a more useful exercise.
Having a framework keeps us on track and offers something we can develop.
For 1 to 1 client work, I use a "Balanced-Grief & Loss model", loosely based on Kübler-Ross's G&L model. It's a "snakes & ladders" approach showing where a client is at & which way they are moving.
The 2 sides and stages are:
(Sense of loss) to -> (Progress)
Denial -> Awareness;
Anger -> Acceptance; that something needs to be done.
Bargaining -> Costs & Gains; measuring the impacts of options.
Depression -> Motivation.
Acceptance -> Change; of normal reactions to new reactions.

In my Model, the original terms aren't used literally:-
Denial - the resistances to change from understandably wanting to cling onto our stable, known world.
Anger - the frustration we experience.
Bargaining - Rationalization: wherein people create acceptable explanations on why we are doing the irrational.
Depression - giving up on our usual, but unsatisfactory, way of "being me".
Acceptance - opening our ears to other ideas.
Snakes and Ladders because we can jump ship on our progress (just think of dieters or recovering addicts) and show signs of approaching things from a G&L reaction.
Using this model allows me to keep my thoughts clear throughout the long processes of change. It offers me guidance as to how to react when I see a client feeling unsure, assess what stage they have gone back to & then have clues as to what I need to do work on to coach to back to the Progress side.
I use other frameworks for other situations.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 09:05:47 am

Thanks Neill - and for posting such interesting personal reflections too. I like your snakes and ladders metaphor. I will use that in a change leadership workshop I am facilitating tomorrow! I also like your comment, 'Rationalization: wherein people create acceptable explanations on why we are doing the irrational.' It reminds me of Gareth Morgan's observation that I have found incredibly useful: 'What passes for rationality is often irrationality in disguise.'

Andrew Campbell

6/8/2018 11:07:18 am

I like this Nick - although I do not do much development work. I do more design work. The issue of relationships has fascinated me on the basis that good organisation design is "capable people working well together". We have lots of terms for the different kinds of relationship we have in our social lives but very few terms for the different relationships in our working lives. I have always wondered why.

Nick Wright

6/8/2018 11:16:09 am

Thanks Andrew. Great questions. I see important overlaps between OD (development) and OD (design) including in, say, what implicit beliefs/values/assumptions inform and influence our sense of what constitutes a 'good' design; what process we use to create or co-create a design and how that influences relationships, culture and outcomes. I sometimes use something similar to 'capable people working together well' in an OD strategy map. You may find these short related pieces interesting: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/what-is-od I would be fascinated to hear your feedback from an organisation design perspective!

Kathryn Healy

8/8/2018 10:54:15 am

The four Ts - Truth, Transparency, Trust and Tenacity ... helps get you to the 5 R's too :)

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 10:54:57 am

Thanks Kathryn. Great personal and professional character traits!

Geoff Elliott

8/8/2018 10:56:59 am

Nick, it should be ODD and change.

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 10:57:32 am

Hi Geoff. I'm curious. Say more..?

LaDonna Wallace Smith

8/8/2018 10:59:10 am

Wonderful tools and options. Thank you for posting!

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 10:59:46 am

Hi LaDonna. Thank you for posting such heart-warming feedback!

James Campbell

8/8/2018 11:00:29 am

For me Asset Based Community Development has always been a great foundation and starting point. It is important to be open to other possibilities and variations though to keep flexible and to ensure you are always coming from a place of individual and community strength.

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 11:02:42 am

Hi James. You folk have definitely inspired me to look into Asset-based community development more. It sounds like there are great resonances with strengths-based and solutions-focused work in other related fields.

Sonia Regan

8/8/2018 11:03:25 am

I tend to do some kind of messy blend of ABCD, RBA and Collective Impact, depending on the particular project (or stage of project), community or initiative. But I really like how this framework seems to tie all of that together - it incorporates the idea of evaluation through the reflective practice, while also including the personable elements - relationships and resilience. It also ties in the resources of the community (as you would do in ABCD). Thanks for sharing.

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 11:17:41 am

Thanks Sonia. I really like your description of a 'messy blend'. That's often what my thinking and work feels like in practice too - although some would prefer to call it agile, adaptive or eclectic! :) I'm pleased you found the framework useful. I find it helpful when working with clients/groups as it raises a range of important issues into awareness (that is, not simply those that are holding the client/community's interest or attention, or that they naturally gravitate towards) and provides a sense of systemic coherence.

Tim Neubauer BTh, CCFP, CPHSA

8/8/2018 11:20:16 am

I would love some feedback. Currently I am developing a rural mental health project to help communities create action plans to promote mental health in rural communities. This is being done through a common backbone agency with community animators to act as the catalysts to the project. I am looking at collective impact and asset based community development but RBA is relatively new to me. If anyone has worked on something similar I would love to hear about it!

Nick Wright

8/8/2018 11:21:50 am

Hi Tim. That sounds like a fascinating and important piece of work. I hope you get some useful contacts and guidance from the community development experts who have posted comments here!

Pete Davies

9/8/2018 08:30:11 am

Hi Nick, I really like the 5 x Rs. I also use a Mental Energy Model developed by David Mackenzie of golfstateofmind.com and Peter Taylor of brilliance training.co.uk
Originally designed for use with golfers, it absolutely fits the world of many of my business coaching clients.
If you’re interested in more, msg me and I’ll send you a copy. Regards Pete

Nick Wright

9/8/2018 08:31:56 am

Thanks Pete! That sounds fascinating. Would you be willing to post highlights from the Mental Energy Model here, perhaps with examples of how you have used it and found it useful in your work with clients?

Joe Cimbak

9/8/2018 08:33:55 am

I love Product (Service), Process and People as my high level scan. Is the product growing, flat-lined or declining. That leads to different OD work needing to be done. Simultaneously I’m looking at Processes. If the Product is “good” the Processes may be deeply flawed inside the Product or Service delivery system. If that’s the case there’s a whole different set of OD work to do. Also simultaneously I look for People issues that block organizational goal achievement. Like poor leaders. Like flawed teamwork. Like ineffective headcount or poorly trained people. This People analysis leads to yet other OD interventions. People, Process and Product are a good scan when looking at any business whether for profit or a 501. Cheers, Joe

Nick Wright

9/8/2018 08:37:09 am

Hi Joe. I like that. You could add 'Praxis' as a 4th P at the heart of the model. That would draw attention to, say, fundamental beliefs, assumptions and constructs at play in each of the other P dimensions and, thereby, open up potential alternatives for action?

David Devenish

9/8/2018 08:47:53 am

Hi Nick

Enjoyed your thought provoking blog on Change Leadership Frameworks.

Nick Wright

9/8/2018 08:48:33 am

Hi Dave. Thanks for your encouraging feedback.

Alan Lilley

9/8/2018 10:49:36 am

I am not a great fan of such diagrams. I have just developed a management and leadership programme - I prefer to teach basic problem solving and analytical techniques which managers and leaders can use in practice. When under fire, I believe that they will reach for these as opposed the many elegant diagrammatic models such as this one...

Nick Wright

9/8/2018 11:02:43 am

Hi Alan and thank you for such honest feedback. I find that different people find different things useful. I'm pretty sure that your management and leadership programme will have some kind of thoughtful structure to its design and that the techniques you teach are based on some kind of implicit or explicit framework of research and practice too.

In my experience, some leaders find a conceptual framework useful (e.g. for planning, sense-making and decision-making) along with skills, methods and techniques they can use in practice. Without awareness of some kind of conceptual framework, leaders may be skilful in fighting fires but not necessarily effective in critical reflective practice.

Lise Hebabi, PhD

10/8/2018 10:47:24 am

Thanks for sharing your model, Nick, I like the simplicity of the 5 R's!

For my part, a model that helps me look at situations from multiple perspectives is the Intersol strategic alignment model, which considers how well purpose, people, and process are aligned and focused on the client's needs and requirements.

Nick Wright

10/8/2018 10:51:32 am

Thanks Lise! Yes, I think the 3 x Ps is a useful model. I would add a 4th 'P' at the centre: 'Praxis'. As I commented in my response to Jo (above), that would draw attention to, say, fundamental beliefs, assumptions and constructs in the other P dimensions and, thereby, open up potential alternatives for action? What do you think?

Yasmin Tan

10/8/2018 10:52:32 am

I like your model, and I think the usefulness of a model is in the suitability to the situation/organisation and in the delivery. Different models may suit different people and organisations.

Nick Wright

10/8/2018 10:53:03 am

Thanks Yasmin. I agree - and well said.

Kyran Newell

10/8/2018 10:55:11 am

We base our OD practice on the Burke-Litwin model also but think of it as a cross-sectional model (ie not as a hierarchical model) so that the leadership components are perceived as in play at all organisation levels. We have leveraged that model into diagnostic tools to identify OD priorities.

Nick Wright

10/8/2018 10:57:17 am

Hi Kyran. I like your cross-sectional idea. It moves the notion of leader/leadership from hierarchical position to, say, whoever and wherever people exercise 'leadership'. Do you have any examples from experience of applying your approach that you could share here?

Sieds Rienks

11/8/2018 10:53:22 pm

To artificial, all these R’s . Do not like it !

Nick Wright

11/8/2018 10:54:32 pm

Hi Sieds. I like your honesty! So...tell me...in a spirit of positive psychology...what frameworks do you like? :)

Anna Clarke

11/8/2018 10:56:11 pm

Hi, thanks for sharing your model, posing the questioning prompting this interesting discussion. Some great models and frameworks here to support CD practice. In my own work I’ve used the National Occupational Standards for Community Development to shape and inform my own practice and work with groups, communities and practitioners. In the UK, all nationally regulated community development qualifications must be mapped to these Standards. More broadly though, readers here may be interested in the recently launched International Standards for Community Development http://www.iacdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IACD-Standards-Guidance-May-2018_Web.pdf. These Standards were published by the International Association for Community Development (IACD) in June this year following an extended global consultation process. Already they are being translated into Russian and Spanish. We would welcome your feedback and love to hear and share how they are being used.

Nick Wright

11/8/2018 10:58:41 pm

Thanks Anna. Thanks for sharing such useful links - much appreciated!

Rob Grover

11/8/2018 11:27:59 pm

Interesting.

Nick Wright

11/8/2018 11:28:17 pm

Thanks Rob.

Babatunde A.

11/8/2018 11:41:04 pm

I am a newly-qualified Workplace Coach and I use the CLEAR coaching framework.

Nick Wright

11/8/2018 11:43:05 pm

Hi Babatunde. Yes, CLEAR can be a useful framework. It can be used well alongside the 5xRs framework, particularly in the 'E' (Exploration) phase of CLEAR.

Cynthia Roomes

12/8/2018 01:51:24 pm

This is the model I developed use, based on practice and learning:
The Well Connected Cycle of Community Engagement
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/well-connected-cycle-community-engagement-cynthia-roomes
Would work well with an ABCD (asset based community development) approach, with elements of Appreciative Inquiry

Nick Wright

12/8/2018 02:05:44 pm

Hi Cynthia. Thank you for sharing such a thought-provoking article. It certainly resonates in many ways with my own experiences in community development, particularly vis 'requires a mutual understanding of what 'community' is in context, because it could mean a magnitude of differing things to a multitude of different people and stakeholder groups. These ‘meanings’ may hold inherent conflicts of interest which shouldn’t be ignored, or swept under the carpet as is all too often the case.' This is a dimension where insights from social constructionism can be useful - are you familiar with it?

I also like your comment: 'Genuine community engagement should allow for stakeholders in all sectors - public, private, social or community, to agree to differ, and should not undermine, sidetrack or oppress the ‘community’s right to challenge’, to define and pursue its own engagement purpose / outcomes / impact.' So important - not inadvertently to attempt to pave over the proverbial cracks!

Chris Hickey

14/8/2018 08:49:03 pm

I think frameworks can be incredibly helpful for shaping the directions of conversations. I always start with an exploratorary phase looking at "Why are we here in this place?" I want to know what has brought them into the room. The 2 frameworks I most frequently use are GROW when people are pretty sorted and looking for the 'next step' and SPACE when people come with a stronger sense of dissatisfaction rather than a stronger sense of purpose.

Nick Wright

14/8/2018 08:54:29 pm

Hi Chris. Thank you for posting such interesting comments. 'Why are we here in this place?' can be a fascinating question at so many different levels. I'm familiar with GROW but not with the SPACE model - do you have any examples from experience that you could share here?

Diny van den Bout

15/8/2018 08:48:29 pm

The framework my clients love to work with is the intentional change model (Richard Boyatzis). An article Richard wrote about it https://www.keystepmedia.com/intentional-change-theory/

Nick Wright

15/8/2018 08:49:11 pm

Hi Diny. That sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing the link.

Dianne Rizzo

17/8/2018 08:12:30 pm

Thank you for sharing! I coach using the ICF competencies, dancing with the client and following their lead. I don't follow a specific model. I agree that the 5R's you mentioned are important and foundational.

Nick Wright

17/8/2018 08:16:38 pm

Thanks Dianne. Yes, we could use the 5Rs as a contextual framework within which to use the ICF competencies. One of the tensions we can face in the coaching arena is how much to work only with that which the client presents...and how much to introduce insights that may lay outside of the client's awareness and which may prove critical...without directing or steering the client. I think this is where skilfull contracting, professional supervision and critical reflective practice are so important.

Nicole Coyne

24/8/2018 05:09:30 am

GROW is great as well as Dilt’s levels of change, Maslow- gosh there are so many, it just depends on the client and their goal.

Nick Wright

24/8/2018 05:14:53 am

Hi Nicole. I think the 'Reflexivity' dimension can open up interesting and important questions about what models we choose to use with a client. How far does it depend on the client and their goal? How far is it influenced by, say, how the client construes themselves, their situation and their goal personally/contextually/culturally; and/or. say, our own construing of the client and his/her situation as influenced by our own personal/contextual/cultural beliefs. values, preferences, background, environment etc? Food for thought.

Marian Janes ICF ACC

24/8/2018 05:15:40 am

Seems to me like this is a good start. However, in light of positive psychology I would focus on more on the transformation. What is the outcome produced in each step? This way others can visualize the journey and the growth to be obtained. In line with ICF competencies I have created my own proprietary simplistic model for coaching. The concept is this. It all starts with Awareness of where you are and what you envision. Next is exploring Options for growth. Then comes a deep look at which possibility holds the most Potential. Once there is a specific pathway identified we then move to creating sustainable Action. The framework provides much room for exploration and discovery as well as forward progress.

Nick Wright

24/8/2018 05:24:51 am

Thanks Marian. I'm curious about, 'however' in relation to 'transformation' - can you say more? I like the sound of our AOPA model. It has resonances with Gestalt and social constructionism. I would add the 'reflexivity' piece as critical to transformative practice; e.g. who or what is influencing: my awareness and what I find myself envisioning/being capable of envisioning; my sense of what options are available to me or to others; what I believe holds most potential in this situation - or not; what actions I believe are realistic/sustainable etc. This often involves raising awareness of and challenging e.g. personal, cultural and systemic assumptions as as well as enabling a client to construct new possibilities and realities.

Marian Janes ICF ACC

27/8/2018 02:20:56 pm

For me the transformation I am hoping to achieve aligns with setting expectations for the interaction. What will happen as a result of each component of the model. What can they envision happening as a result of Relationships, Resilience, etc. Seems like a great model here but I am trying to understand the message from an implementation standpoint. I think I would need to hear it play out to appreciate the true power of what you are unleashing here. Great discussion.

Nick Wright

27/8/2018 02:28:51 pm

Thanks Marian. That's a helpful explanation. I like your question, 'what they envision happening as a result of...'. It's something about, 'in order that...' that points towards wider and deeper values, goals, aspirations etc. In terms of application or implementation, given that it is a generic model, one way to do this is to jot down possible (a) issues/questions and/or (b) actions/interventions against each dimension - and/or, with a client, to work with them to do the same for themselves. The reflexivity area often proves most challenging and revealing and, thereby, holds greatest potential for transformational outcomes. On that theme, you may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/spots

U Shwe Thein

7/11/2018 02:41:35 pm

These 5 Rs, based on the focuses that mentioned for each of them, cover whole organization perspectives. It is a useful approach. Thanks Nick!

Nick Wright

7/11/2018 02:42:29 pm

Hi U Shwe. Thank you for your encouraging feedback!

Frameworks

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Frameworks

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives