Diagnosing Needs at Different Levels

I once put together a 3D puzzle. The added dimension made it more difficult, but I also had to look at the pieces from different sides. With 2D puzzles, one looks at the shape of the pieces and the color of the top side. I learned I had to take into account thickness, sides, and the color on the back of the pieces. It was challenging, but the puzzle, once complete was much more accurate and representative than a 2D puzzle.

This week, I felt that introducing the organizational levels to the BEM was like adding a 3rd dimension to a 2D concept. Luckily, I’m pretty good at thinking spatially, but if I weren’t, this would have been more challenging to grasp.

Adding the levels meant I had to step back to see the whole picture. I also had to consider different points of view. It brought to light the fact that I was stuck in my approach to certain problems. For instance, I might approach every performance problem as residing with the performer. However, the performer’s issue could be a reaction to pressures from the environment that aren’t even at their own level. I might not pick up on these pressures because they are not visible, only their results or consequences.

Metaphorically, it could be like a disease such as Ulcerative Colitis, which presents as pain from inflammation in the colon. However, the actual cause of the disease has to do with an over-active immune system, resulting in an immune system that attacks its own body, specifically the colon. Treating the pain in the colon isn’t going to stop the disease, which is actually in a different system of the body (not the digestive system). This is why navigating the healthcare system can be so challenging, specialists collect data from their own system using their own tools, but the data from different systems don’t always integrate. This is similar to Marker (2007) discussing the use of the BEM with environmental models and noting that “the practitioner who uses both a cause analysis and an environmental analysis model will be left with two sets of data, which can be difficult to integrate into a useful guide to action” (p. 26).

A needs assessment is as useful as the models it uses. Altschuld and Lepicki (2009) define a need as “a measured discrepancy between the current state (what is) and the desired one (what should be)  and argues that “without data about both states and the ability to contrast them, it is not a possible to have a defined need” (pp. 772-773). To revisit the metaphor above, one could define UC as a level of pain measured at 8 that needs to be reduce to 2 or lower. In such a case, the intervention would focus on reducing pain but would not touch the root cause. By looking at the various systems of the body and how they influence the problem, we can diagnose the root cause and treat the cause of the disease instead of managing the symptom.

In the same way, Introducing the various levels of the organization when considering the performance of an individual allows the HPT practitioner to better diagnose the root cause of the problem and prescribe interventions that will successfully improve performance at the individual level that will also improve the organizational performance.

Resources

Altschuld, J. W., & Lepicki, T. L. (2009). Needs assessment. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.) Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: The handbook of selecting and implementing performance interventions. (pp. 771-791). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. https://boisestate.eblib.com/atron/FullRecord.aspx?p=468975

Marker, A.  (2007). Synchronized analysis model: Linking Gilbert’s behavior engineering model with environmental analysis models. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 26-32. https://doi.10.1002/pfi.036