1. VAL HAMMOND
Research Competition
WHY LEADERS AND HRD PROFESSIONALS SHOULD
FOCUS ON QUALITY OF INTERACTION WHEN
FORMULATION AND EXECUTING STRATEGY
Alison Reynolds and David Lewis
www.roffeypark.com

2. A Familiar Story
On the 20th June, the merger was announced. The news
was greeted with enthusiasm by staff, customers and
investors alike. With the promise of extensive synergies and
new opportunities, the future looked bright. Two months
later, while many were still basking in the afterglow of this
strategic masterstroke, the first rumours of restructuring
began. Not long after that, the process integration project
was initiated, and shortly after that, selected demotions and
new appointments were announced. Staff morale collapsed
overnight - anxiety and anger took hold. As despondency
grew, management communicated, with increased urgency,
the need to stick to the plan. With each new missive mistrust
grew.
This story is typical and applies not only to mergers but many
other initiatives designed to deliver strategic advantage. The
consequences go far beyond unhappy staff. The strategy is
rejected, execution fails and performance plummets. This
story is reflected in research that shows 70% of initiatives fail
to deliver their intended benefits (Nohria & Beer, 2000).
In this article, we explore the human dynamics behind this
alarming statistic. We report the findings from our study
revealing that leaders shy away from engaging in quality
interaction with people, in preference for making concrete
organisational changes, even though they know they do not
work.
We explain why interaction between people is central to
successful strategy formulation and execution. We explore
what drives managers to focus on changes to organisational
structure, process and hierarchy, at the expense of engaging
in quality interaction. We present a participative approach
that puts interaction at the heart of strategy formulation and
execution.
Our recommendation to HRD professionals is to invest in
facilitating and supporting interaction focused on the strategic
objectives at hand.
TheTyranny of theTangible
In our natural desire to act, demonstrate our ability and make
visible progress, we focus on the tangible. We start to redraw
organisational boundaries, announce new appointments
and create new teams. We use these tangible aspects of
organisational life to signify change. This way we feel in
control.
In so doing, we lose sight of the outcomes we need to deliver
our strategy, i.e. new ways of thinking and behaving: better
collaboration; greater innovation; enhanced customer focus;
more effective management, etc. It is assumed that these will
emerge if we can just get the structure right, the processes
right and the right hierarchy in place. But just as “rearranging
the deck chairs on the Titanic” did nothing to save the ship,
neither, in themselves, do new structures, processes and
hierarchies produce strategic value. In fact, by starting with
these tangible levers of execution we actually make things
worse.
• Changing structures, procedures and decision authorities
before engaging in quality interaction has three major
impacts:
• We cause anxiety, anger and mistrust
• We fail to capitalise on the transformational power of
interaction
• We make expensive changes that may turn out to be
unnecessary

3. Anxiety,Anger and Mistrust
The psychological effect of starting with changes to structure,
hierarchy and process is devastating, as depicted in our
opening scenario. Attachment theory, developed by John
Bowlby (1982) in his research on children evacuated during
the Second World War and the effect on them of separation
from the parents, helps to explain why.
The theory explores how as humans we seek “safe
attachment” within our environment. The theory has been
expanded upon and applied in business by Peter Robertson
(2004). In summary, each of us seeks safe attachment
in order to function confidently and creatively in our
environment. Some of us seek safe attachment through
our relationships with others. Strong, trusting personal
relationships provide the conditions for us to perform and
contribute according to our strengths and to our potential. For
others, beliefs, procedures, methods, content, task, systems
etc. comprise the object of attachment. As long as our beliefs
are intact or our methods and procedures are effective and
reliable etc., we can contribute and perform to our potential.
Safe attachment is a very strong psychological need. In
stable environments, most of us are able to establish safe
attachment through our relationships or content focus
according to our attachment needs. In this way, we are able to
concentrate on performance and our contribution to the work
of the organisation.
The problem comes as soon as there is the slightest
rumour that restructuring, changes to hierarchy or changes
to procedure are afoot. Instantly and naturally, energy is
redirected from productive work to anxiety, as individuals
speculate on the implications of these changes. For example,
if I’m strongly people attached, how will restructuring, or
changes in hierarchy, affect those I work with? If I’m strongly
content attached, how will changes in procedure affect my
ability to concentrate on content and do things the way I think
they should be done?
This is the problem with starting strategic change by focusing
on structure, hierarchy and procedure. It causes anxiety,
distraction from productive work, mistrust and anger. Anyone
who has been through a major change initiated in this way will
recognise these feelings, in themselves and in others.

4. Capitising on the
Transformational Power of
Interaction
In addition to distraction from productive work, the focus
on structure, hierarchy and procedure, at the expense of
interaction between people, means we fail to capitalise on
the transformational power of interaction.
Sense cannot be given to others. We make sense for
ourselves through interaction. The problem is that the way
we organise inherently erodes the quality of our interaction
with others. The way we structure in silos erodes interaction;
hierarchy erodes interaction, and procedure, in the name of
efficiency, erodes interaction.
In the absence of real connection, people resort to
stereotypes of others. The single narrative emerges. The
trouble with IT is… The trouble with Finance is… The trouble
with John is… The trouble with Valentina is….We allow
ourselves to think in terms of others as having either the
wrong values or, the wrong qualities or both.
But a single narrative bears little resemblance to the truth.
Most of the time there is nothing wrong with people’s values
and there are sufficient people with sufficient qualities to
formulate and deliver a winning strategy.
It is not the fault of structure. Whether we organise in silos,
matrices or a combination of both, barriers to interaction
will appear. It is not the fault of hierarchy. There will
always be hierarchy, formal or informal through which
decisions and responsibilities are assigned. It is not the
fault of procedures. Without procedures, inefficiency simply
hastens inevitable decline.
It is the focus on structure, hierarchy and procedures at
the expense of quality interaction that is at fault. For
execution to work, those that need to execute need
to shape the strategy and own the plan. They need to
change what they think and what they do, and they do
this through interaction and emotional connection with
other people who they respect. When the quality of
interaction is inhibited, understanding of and
execution of strategy
is undermined.
Expensive Mistakes
As we have seen, the decision to restructure, change
processes and amend hierarchies can cause a lot of damage.
Whilst an organisation can recover from such decisions,
we know it takes time (cost) to regain safe attachment
and regroup. Addressing the tangible first can prove an
expensive decision. The truth is that the strategic outcome
the organisation is looking for is best served by first creating
shared context and momentum through quality of interaction.
In this way, the expense of unnecessary changes and a
demoralised work force can be avoided.

5. The Knowing – Doing Gap
In a recent study conducted by the authors, global senior executives from a cross-section of industries were asked two questions.
First, “In your experience, when executing strategy, where do organisations focus most attention?”
And second, ”How would you rank the barriers to strategy execution?”
Figure 1: Senior Executive Responses
Our study shows the gap between where leaders focus their energy and attention and where they see the main barriers to
executing strategy. That is to say, as senior executives, we know that the biggest barrier to success is culture and the quality of
interaction. Yet we persist in starting with and emphasising restructuring, changing decision authorities and adjusting processes. It is
an example of what Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton call the knowing-doing gap (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999).
The answers to the second question above concur with the findings of a recent research report conducted by Development
Dimensions International (DDI) examining how high quality interactions can drive workplace productivity. Over 50% of respondents
from a global sample reported that their manager most of the time or always lacks effective interaction skills. These skills include
soliciting ideas and clarifying understanding. This further indicates, that this is an area leaders need to focus on. Perhaps this partly
explains why although leaders ‘know’ how important interaction is, they shy away from it – they simply don’t have the skills.
In our experience, when organisations do focus on the intangibles they frequently make the mistake of embarking on culture
programmes insufficiently integrated with core strategic outcomes. They invest in developing new competency frameworks or
creating posters listing the organisation’s values. Unfortunately, culture is not susceptible to planned change in this way. Culture
emerges from the myriad interactions that takes place across the organisation. We believe the key to successful execution lies in
the quality of interaction. Through interaction people change the way they think and behave and as they do the culture evolves in
concert.
It is important at this point to be clear about what we mean by quality of interaction.

6. QUALITY OF INTERACTION
Executives are right when they say people are their most
important asset. Human interaction is at the heart of value
creation.
To establish high quality interaction we need to:
• Support people’s intrinsic interaction needs
• Enable people to deploy their strengths (establish safe
attachment)
• Maintain shared focus
Quality of interaction is underpinned by five intrinsic human
needs for:
• Esteem: through positive reinforcement of worth and value
• Empathy: through understanding different perspectives and
emotions
• Involvement: through initiating and valuing contributions
and being open to influence
• Connection: through sharing and building new ideas
• Autonomy: through demonstrating initiative, ownership and
accountability
Our work on this with many organisations has informed the
behaviours we consider as contributing to and cultivating
quality interactions.
MAINTAINING A SHARED FOCUS
• Create a shared understanding of external issues and how
these have a bearing on current activities
• Be clear about the negotiables and the non-negotiables.
What can be influenced and what cannot. What decisions
have already been made?
• Share all perspectives, assumptions and analysis around
challenges, opportunities and changes
DEPLOYING PEOPLE’S STRENGTHS (ESTABLISHING
SAFE ATTACHMENT)
• Respect the person, respect their expertise, confront the
issues
• Share any uncertainty across the group and use it to
generate ideas
• Seek different views and experiences
• Share assumptions, perspectives and analysis openly
• Avoid defensive responses
• Demonstrate that influence is two-way
FULFILLING INTERACTION NEEDS
• Balance advocacy and inquiry
• Connect with the intent, interests, intuition and emotions
• Suspend judgement and explore options
• Ask others for their ideas first
• Give people accountability and autonomy
• Connect people and teams to work on aspects of
implementation together
As a starter, if you want to improve the quality of interaction
in your organisation get out in the business, work in situ
and embed processes to review and feedback on these
behaviours. Keep at it until they become second nature. Most
organisations are currently far from it.
Shared
Focus
Play to Strengths
Interaction Needs

7. Reversing the Sequence
So the lesson is simple. Reverse the sequence and focus on facilitating quality interaction. But if it’s so simple and as indicated in
our study, people know that the biggest barrier to successful execution is culture and interaction, why don’t leaders focus on them?
It is much easier to redraw the structure, to design new processes and appoint new managers. We know how to do it. It is what our
predecessor did. You can see that it has been done. It is predictable controllable, deliverable within a specified time and budget.
But unfortunately, as we have seen, on its own, not just ineffective, but damaging.
Engaging in genuine interaction around strategy and execution across the organisation can feel like walking a tightrope without a
safety net. People get emotional, unpredictable, may not agree with you, and may not agree with each other - and then what? As
leaders we have been promoted based on our expertise and ability to get things done - i.e. having the answers. Strong leaders
drive change. Strong leaders display certainty and confidence. Strong leaders take no prisoners. Why would I risk entering this
messy world?
If we are to expect leaders to change and take such risks we need to provide them with a toolkit. If they can construct the
right environment and focus, this ‘messy’ dialogue is far more likely to lead to understanding and commitment than avoidance,
manipulation, one-way communication or oppositional debate.

8. The Participative Approach
Jonathan Haidt, creator of the Social Intuitionist Model of interaction, observed the following. When people are presented with
a new event, a new idea, an instruction to change, a request to change…they automatically and instantaneously filter the event
through their personal biases, emotional disposition and past experience. This leads to an intuitive interpretation of what the event
means and informs the attitude taken i.e. their judgement. At the end of this process, a rational argument (justification) for what has
been decided is developed.
Figure 2: Social Intuitionist model
When people react and work in isolation they inevitably develop different judgements and rationalisations. When their differences
are confronted they attempt to persuade each other through rational argument. But as shown in the diagram, they are effectively
talking to a brick wall.
Regardless of changes to structures or processes when the fundamental questions are ignored, or responded to in isolation,
initiatives become bogged down by conflicts, confusion and disagreement. This happens when we fail to build a foundation through
connection that enables us to explore different perspectives and emotional reactions. It is a given that not everyone will see things
the same way. Effort needs to be put into building trust and consensus at the beginning.
Change is an emotional decision. What is needed is high quality interaction that builds mutual respect such that people can
challenge their assumptions (biases), accept and respect their emotions and learn through shared experience.
The diagram below illustrates a framework for establishing high quality interaction. It can be applied in small groups or across entire
organisations to create better solutions with genuine support.
Person One
Person Two
Intuition
Intuition
Judgment
Judgment
Reasoning
Reasoning
Emotion
Bias
Experience
Emotion
Bias
Experience
Event

9. Figure 3. Participative approach framework
Success depends on maintaining focus (enabling people to fully engage), providing safe attachment (enabling people to deploy
their strengths) and fulfilling core interaction needs (enabling productivity and supporting well-being). When diverse perspectives,
assumptions and analyses are explored, there is the best chance of confronting and resolving conflicts.
Attempts to short cut participative approaches run the risk of precipitating a destructive downward spiral, where each attempt of
management to force the pace of change is met with greater resistance. When this happens:
• The core questions remain unanswered leaving people asking more of leaders in an attempt to seek clarity. People cite feeling
unheard and not party to, or aware of decisions.
• Leaders act more as sense givers, providing answers, requiring action, giving ultimatums and becoming defensive of decisions.
• In their haste to engage and involve, leaders communicate but avoid the core questions for fear of going backwards. And in their
frustration fail to clarify the negotiables and non-negotiables
• People begin to feel the ‘ask’ for their opinion is disingenuous, decisions are predetermined, their perspectives are not valued.
• Confusion and frustration turn to mistrust and resistance.
Why
What
How
Execute
Build consesnsus around
the compelling case for
change
Build consesnsus around
the desired target
orperation model
Build consesnsus for
the actions that need to
be taken
Build consesnsus on
accountabilities and
responsibilities
Esteem Involvement Connection Autonomy Empathy
Focus
Deploystrengths
Interaction needs

10. Application
A simple and powerful way to apply this framework is through four integrated conversations. Each conversation focuses in turn on
the focus areas for successful strategy formulation and execution:
• Why: the compelling case for change
• What: the target operating model (the solutions)
• How: the actions /changes that need to happen
• Execution: accountabilities and responsibilities
Each conversation takes place in mixed groups from all the stakeholder communities. The conversation is facilitated to model
and coach behaviours to address people’s interaction needs for esteem, involvement, connection, autonomy and empathy. To
surface diverse perspectives, connect with emotions and strengthen outcomes, three open questions are used to structure each
conversation. They are:
1. What excites you about…?
2. What worries you about..?
3. What have we missed …?
The sequence of questions is important. The negative voices tend to be louder (but not necessarily the majority) when change is
initiated. Starting with the positive makes sure these voices are heard and creates a more balanced conversation.
The output from each conversation is used to strengthen the strategy, the target operating model and the execution
accountabilities.
It is a technique that can be used by leaders and managers in all their interactions regarding strategy formulation and execution
from one-to-one meetings, management meetings, to large group interventions. By switching the default mode from telling to
participating, leaders can transform their organisation’s capability for strategy formulation and execution.
An Opportunity for the HRD Professional
The authors recently worked with an organisation seeking to change the culture of their meetings. For ten years they had spent
their annual training budget on generic meetings training for all managers. The training was well received and highly rated but
it failed to make a difference. It had no impact in actual meetings. Meeting ineffectiveness remained the top frustration among
managers. The culture remained the same.
Taking a different tact, we focused on specific meetings. We worked with the group live, joining the meetings, sharing observations
and exploring the quality of the interactions. Groups demonstrated a high degree of passive behaviour. They often had no clear
purpose, did not hold people to account on objectives and were even unclear on why certain members attended – not that anyone
had raised this. Through focusing on and enhancing the quality of the interaction within the group the culture and effectiveness
of the meetings changed. Outcomes were improved, the culture adjusted and new competences developed while executing
business.
We use this story to illustrate the power of working in situ to support strategy execution. Having more effective meetings may
seem like a minor achievement but the same principle applies to innovation, customer focus and all the other strategic initiatives
organisations undertake. You get more return on your investment working in context than in a classroom.
Conclusion
For HRD Professionals who want to contribute to strategy formulation and execution the message from our work is simple. Take the
training budget and invest it in facilitating high quality interaction in the business. Work live with the strategic objectives, focus on
interactions, coach participative behaviour - and the desired outcomes, culture and competences will follow.

11. References
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change: Harvard Business Review
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Pfeffer, J. (1999). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action
Robertson, P. (2004). Always Change a Winning Team
DDI Research Report (PDF): Driving Workforce Productivity through High Quality Interactions
http://www.ddiworld.com/DDIWorldAU/media/research/drivingworkplaceroductivity_rp_ddi_au.pdf

12. UK Office
Roffey Park Institute, Forest Road, Horsham, West Sussex,
RH12 4TB, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1293 851644
Fax: +44 (0) 1293 851565
Email: info@roffeypark.com
Roffey Park Institute is a Charity, Registered No 254591
Asia Pacific Office
Roffey Park Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, 3 Temasek Avenue, Level 34
Centennial Tower, Singapore 039190
Tel: +65 6549 7840 / 7841 / 7842
Fax: +65 6549 7011
Email: singapore@roffeypark.com
Company registration 201015595E
The Val Hammond fund cements Roffey Park’s commitment to applied
management research through expanding the diversity and reach of thinking
aimed at improving the world of work. Val, formerly Roffey Park’s Chair and
Chief Executive, is a keen supporter of Roffey Park’s proud tradition as a
charitable research institute and is still deeply engaged in Roffey’s research
work through her participation in Roffey’s research advisory group.