User:AndyatMissenden

  Evolutive Management   

Evolutive Management (EM) differs from conventional strategic performance management by its emphasis on execution rather than just metric management; and by the the embedding of capabilities that enable an organisation to evolve with change. It is this capability to enable organizations to evolve with change, being evolutive, which leads many to consider EM as the performance management initiative of this age where change is the norm.

Unlike many change programs offered today, EM is not a Human Resources initiative, but is most clearly an Executive Management driven initiative. EM is more a code of practice, or a management architecture than it is a method. One difference between the conventional approaches to business plan execution and managing change is the way EM hardwires the organisation's direction to the actions of every employee. Another is how change is seen positively as the source of variety and emerging opportunities. A significant aspect of EM is the application of transparent accountability which is seen to be key in embedding the initiative within an organisation.

Characteristics
The purpose of EM is to embed within an organisation the capability to execute and evolve swiftly as a single entity. Rather than attempting to manage change by the intervention of change managementprograms, EM builds into an organisation the capability to change swiftly . In EM this built in capability for an organisation to continually change as a single unit is called ‘evolutive’.

Along with so much of modern management practice, the origin of EM lies within Systems Thinking. This is evident not just by its holistic approach and the use of feedback mechanisms, in the shape of reviews and escalation processes, similar to those discussed in Senge’s, The Fifth Discipline. However, rather than just drive organisation learning, EM uses reviews and escalation processes to drive the execution of the organisation direction and embed the evolutive capabilities needed to operate effectively in today’s changing environment.

One significant difference between the conventional approach to performance management and EM is the Execution Review. In EM, regular reviews of performance with subordinates, called Execution Reviews, focus not just on what has been achieved, but also how it was achieved; what is enabling or constraining execution; and what actions are planned in continuing forward. These Execution Reviews are not necessarily formal, but generally are short sessions and are conducted frequently. An Execution Review will often occur as a direct result of a subordinate escalating a perceived constraint, and is therefor a key step in finding a solution to that constraint.

Embedding EM is not solely reliant upon education to change behaviour. In EM, behavioural change, the required culture change, is also achieved by changing the working environment through the introduction of clear and transparent accountability. Transparent Accountability (TA) is a critical part of EM.

History
Even though EM is a relative new initiative, its roots go back some way and across a number of management disciplines. The holistic nature of the approach is a clear link to its Systems Thinking pedigree along with the cybernetic principles it applies, and links to the work of Peter Senge. There are also connections to developments in the understanding of the role that proactive behaviour plays in managing change and uncertainty.

An early account of EM is the publication of a beta-test in the UK Operations function of National Car Rentals in 2008. (Originally EM was called Review Management). The results from this project where above expectations.

However more importantly these results led to the recognition of the potential EM would have in building into organisations the essential capabilities to be enable them to evolve in order to meet the demands of change in their environement. This is especially so in respect of enabling management to achieve a balance between directed and emerging strategies. It also said to go some way to support Kotter’s idea of Change Leadership.

Critics
The main critics of EM are those who support the premise that organisation change, especially culture change, should be approached solely through education initiatives about the change and that time should be given to enable employees to come to terms with the new ways. The premise is that as employees change, the desired culture and behaviours will emerge and become embedded. Even though in EM it is accepted that education plays a part in culture change, EM starts by changing the working environment to one that reinforces the desired behaviour and culture. EM recognises the human characteristic that new behaviour will fade back to old ways if the environment has not changed enough to make the old ways impossible.