Traditional Group Design

How most groups currently design their most consequential goals and actions.

The default approach to group decision design — and why most implementations consistently produce less than they could.

An absence mindset.

When you don't have a strategy, design success is having a strategy.

When you have a problem, design success is having a mitigation.

When you see an opportunity, design success is having a capture mechanism.

No common finish line.

Everyone has a different definition of Done in each situation.

It's not laziness. A true Best Possible is beyond where people can see.

Idiom orthodoxy.

A steady flow of management idioms has reassured leaders that their goals and plans are probably good enough and put the spotlight on implementation performance.

Solving symptoms.

Inspection of Group Design has focused on those in the room - their skills, behaviors, and dynamics.

Not the procedural weaknesses in determining how to produce the best possible output.

Observed reality.

Putting the spotlight on the Group Design capability that determines what execution is asked to deliver, a preceding set of idioms surfaced.

It won't buff out.

An absence mindset. No definition of Done. Missing and incorrect concepts and methods.

41 quality leaks - 22 before the first conversation begins.

The traditional Group Design discipline is not something you try to rebuild and repair.

The right way to travel.

Leaders need their groups defining the future using a professionally responsible Group Design process.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is traditional GDM 'bad'?
Does a 'standard' traditional GDM process exist?
Why have the best firms used traditional GDM if it is so weak?
Can traditional GDM be 'fixed'?
What happens if we keep using traditional GDM?