NICK WRIGHT
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact

Frameworks

31/7/2018

112 Comments

 
Picture

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.

Reply
Nick Wright
1/8/2018 08:34:38 am

Thanks Gwen. I hope you find it useful!

Reply
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.

Reply
Nick Wright
1/8/2018 08:37:12 am

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

Reply
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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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?

Reply
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).

Reply
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.

Reply
Martine Bolton
2/8/2018 07:30:10 pm

Wow. Excellent stuff Nick. Love it all ☺!

Reply
Nick Wright
2/8/2018 07:30:48 pm

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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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

Reply
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...

Reply
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?

Reply
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.

Reply
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

Reply
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”

Reply
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'?

Reply
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

Reply
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

Reply
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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
Richard A. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
4/8/2018 11:19:34 am

Transformational Leadership (especially Individual Consideration)

Reply
Nick Wright
4/8/2018 11:21:07 am

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

Reply
Joram Kamau
6/8/2018 08:30:18 am

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

Reply
Nick Wright
6/8/2018 08:31:06 am

Thanks Joram - much appreciated.

Reply
Lesley Marie Bennett
6/8/2018 08:32:13 am

Thanks Nick and Erik for sharing.

Reply
Nick Wright.
6/8/2018 08:32:44 am

Thanks Lesley. You're welcome.

Reply
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.

Reply
Nick Wright
6/8/2018 08:34:21 am

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

Reply
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.

Reply
Nick Wright
6/8/2018 08:36:26 am

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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
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!

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
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.

Reply
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.'

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
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 :)

Reply
Nick Wright
8/8/2018 10:54:57 am

Thanks Kathryn. Great personal and professional character traits!

Reply
Geoff Elliott
8/8/2018 10:56:59 am

Nick, it should be ODD and change.

Reply
Nick Wright
8/8/2018 10:57:32 am

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

Reply
LaDonna Wallace Smith
8/8/2018 10:59:10 am

Wonderful tools and options. Thank you for posting!

Reply
Nick Wright
8/8/2018 10:59:46 am

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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
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!

Reply
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

Reply
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?

Reply
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

Reply
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?

Reply
David Devenish
9/8/2018 08:47:53 am

Hi Nick

Enjoyed your thought provoking blog on Change Leadership Frameworks.

Reply
Nick Wright
9/8/2018 08:48:33 am

Hi Dave. Thanks for your encouraging feedback.

Reply
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...

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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?

Reply
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.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/8/2018 10:53:03 am

Thanks Yasmin. I agree - and well said.

Reply
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.

Reply
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?

Reply
Sieds Rienks
11/8/2018 10:53:22 pm

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

Reply
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? :)

Reply
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.

Reply
Nick Wright
11/8/2018 10:58:41 pm

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

Reply
Rob Grover
11/8/2018 11:27:59 pm

Interesting.

Reply
Nick Wright
11/8/2018 11:28:17 pm

Thanks Rob.

Reply
Babatunde A.
11/8/2018 11:41:04 pm

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

Reply
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.

Reply
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

Reply
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!

Reply
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.

Reply
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?

Reply
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/

Reply
Nick Wright
15/8/2018 08:49:11 pm

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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
Nick Wright
7/11/2018 02:42:29 pm

Hi U Shwe. Thank you for your encouraging feedback!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    ​Nick Wright

    ​I'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? ​Get in touch!

    Picture
    Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
    Subscribe to Blog
    Picture
    Picture


    ​Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011

    Categories

    All
    Abc
    Ability
    Accountability
    Achievement
    Act
    Action
    Action Learning
    Activism
    Adaptability
    Adaptive
    Advent
    Adventure
    Africa
    Agency
    Agile
    Ambiguity
    Angle
    Anticipation
    Anxiety
    Appraisal
    Appreciation
    Appreciative
    Appreciative Inquiry
    Approach
    Argyris
    Asia
    Assumption
    Assumptions
    Asylum
    Attachment
    Attention
    Attitude
    Audience
    Authenticity
    Authority
    Autonomy
    Avoidance
    Awareness
    Behaviour
    Being
    Belief
    Beliefs
    Bias
    Bible
    Body Language
    Boundaries
    Brainstorming
    Brand
    Calling
    Care
    Career
    Censorship
    Challenge
    Change
    Character
    Charity
    Child
    Choice
    Choose
    Christ
    Christian
    Christmas
    Clarity
    Client
    Climate
    Coach
    Coaching
    Coactive
    Cognition
    Cognitive
    Cognitive Behavioural
    Commitment
    Communication
    Community
    Compassion
    Competence
    Competencies
    Complexity
    Concepts
    Conflict
    Confluence
    Congruence
    Consciousness
    Construct
    Constructs
    Construe
    Consultancy
    Contact
    Content
    Context
    Contracting
    Contribution
    Control
    Conversation
    Corruption
    Counselling
    Counterintiution
    Counterintuition
    Countertransference
    Courage
    Craziness
    Creativity
    Credibility
    Crisis
    Critical Consciousness
    Critical Reflection
    Critical Reflective Practice
    Critical Reflexivity
    Critical Thinking
    Critique
    Cross
    Cross Culture
    Cross-culture
    Culture
    Curiosity
    Customer Care
    Customers
    Customer Service
    Death
    Deception
    Decision
    Deconstruction
    Defence
    Defences
    Deferred Gratification
    Definition
    Delusion
    Democracy
    Depression
    Determination
    Development
    Deviance
    Deviant
    Diagnosis
    Disaster
    Discernment
    Disclosure
    Discovery
    Discrimination
    Disruptive
    Dissent
    Dissident
    Dissonance
    Distinctiveness
    Distortion
    Diversity
    Dream
    Dynamic
    Dynamics
    Easter
    Ecology
    Edge
    Edi
    Education
    Effectiveness
    Efficiency
    Ego State
    Eliciting
    Emergence
    Emotion
    Emotional
    Emotional Intelligence
    Empathy
    Empowerment
    Encouragement
    Energy
    Engagement
    Environment
    Equality
    Eternity
    Ethics
    Ethiopia
    Evaluation
    Evidence
    Evocative
    Existential
    Existentialism
    Expectation
    Expectations
    Experience
    Experiment
    Experimentation
    Exploration
    Explore
    Exposure
    Facilitation
    Faith
    Fear
    Feedback
    Feeling
    Feminism
    Figure
    Filter
    Fit
    Flashback
    Focus
    Forgiveness
    Framework
    Freedom
    Freud
    Fun
    Future
    Gender
    Geopolitical
    Geopolitics
    Gestalt
    Global
    Goal
    Goals
    God
    Gospel
    Grace
    Grief
    Grit
    Ground
    Group
    Guidance
    Healing
    Health
    Hear
    Heidegger
    Hero
    Hope
    Human
    Human Givens
    Humanity
    Human Resources
    Human Rights
    Humility
    Humour
    Hybrid
    Hypotheses
    Hypothesis
    Icon
    Ideation
    Identity
    Image
    Imagination
    Impact
    Impostor
    Inclusion
    Independence
    Influence
    INGO
    Initiative
    Injustice
    Innovation
    Inquiry
    Insecurity
    Insight
    Inspiration
    Instinct
    Integrity
    Intention
    Interdependence
    Interference
    International
    Interpretation
    Intimacy
    Introversion
    Intuition
    Invisible
    Jargon
    Jesus
    Journey
    Jungle
    Justice
    Keys
    Knowing
    Knowledge
    Labels
    Language
    Lateral Thinking
    Leader
    Leadership
    Learner
    Learning
    Lesson
    Liberal
    Life
    Light
    Listening
    Logic
    Loss
    Love
    Management
    Manager
    Marathon
    Matrix
    Mbti
    Meaning
    Media
    Mediation
    Meetings
    Memory
    Mentoring
    Merit
    Metaphor
    Metaphysic
    Mindfulness
    Miracle
    Mirroring
    Misfit
    Mission
    Mode
    Morality
    Motivation
    Mystery
    Narrative
    Nazis
    Need
    Negotiation
    Neo-Nazi
    Networking
    News
    New Year
    Norm
    Norms
    Noticing
    Online
    Operations
    Opportunity
    Oppression
    Organisation
    Organisation Develoment
    Organisation Development
    Origin
    Pace
    Panic
    Paradigm
    Paradox
    Partnership
    Passion
    Pastoral
    Pattern Matching
    Peace
    People
    Perception
    Perfectionism
    Performance
    Perseverance
    Personal Constructs
    Personal Leadership
    Person Centred
    Perspective
    Phenomenology
    Phenomenon
    Philippines
    Philosophy
    Physicality
    Plan
    Plans
    Plato
    Play
    Plot
    Polarity
    Policy
    Politics
    Poor
    Positive
    Positive Psychology
    Posture
    Potential
    Potential#
    Poverty
    Power
    Practice
    Pragmatism
    Praxis
    Prayer
    Preference
    Preferences
    Prepare
    Presence
    Principles
    Priorities
    Priority
    Privilege
    Proactivity
    Problem Solving
    Process
    Professional
    Progressive
    Projection
    Projects
    Prompt
    Propaganda
    Protection
    Protest
    Providence
    Provocative
    Psychoanalysis
    Psychodynamic
    Psychodynamics
    Psychology
    Psychometrics
    Psychotherapy
    Purpose
    Quality
    Questions
    Race
    Radical
    Rational
    Rationale
    Rationalisation
    Rationality
    Reality
    Reason
    Reasoning
    Reconciliation
    Recruitment
    Reflect
    Reflection
    Reflective Practice
    Reflexivity
    Reframing
    Refugee
    Refugees
    Relationship
    Relationships
    Release
    Religion
    Representation
    Rescue
    Research
    Resilience
    Resonance
    Resourcefulness
    Responsibility
    Responsive
    Responsiveness
    Revelation
    Reward
    Rights
    Risk
    Role
    Role Model
    Rosabeth Moss-kanter
    Rules
    Sabbath
    Satire
    Satnav
    Saviour
    Schemata
    School
    Science
    Secure Base
    Security
    See
    Selection
    Selective Attention
    Self
    Sense Making
    Senses
    Sensitivity
    Serendipity
    Servant
    Shadow
    Significance
    Silence
    Sin
    Skills
    Social Construct
    Social Construction
    Social Constructionism
    Social Media
    Social Psychology
    Socrates
    Solution Focused
    Solutions
    Solutions Focus
    Solutions-focus
    Space
    Speed
    Spirit
    Spirituality
    Stance
    Stealth
    Stereotype
    Stereotypes
    Story
    Strategic
    Strategy
    Strengths
    Stress
    Stretch
    Structure
    Struggle
    Stuck
    Style
    Subconscious
    Subjectivity
    Success
    Suffering
    Supervision
    Support
    Survival
    Sustainability
    Symbol
    Symbolism
    Systems
    Systems Thinking
    TA
    Tactical
    Tactics
    Talent
    Teacher
    Teaching
    Team
    Teamwork
    Teenage
    Theology
    Theory
    Therapy
    Thinking
    Thought
    Time
    Touch
    Toys
    Traction
    Trade
    Tradition
    Training
    Transactional Analysis
    Transference
    Transformation
    Transition
    Transitional Object
    Trauma
    Trust
    Truth
    Uncertainty
    Unexpected
    Vallues
    Value
    Values
    Violence
    Visibility
    Vision
    Voice
    VUCA
    Vulnerability
    Vulnerable
    Waiting
    War
    Wealth
    Weird
    Wellbeing
    Will
    Willingness
    Window
    Wisdom
    Wonder
    Words
    World
    Worth
    Youth
    Zoom

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact